[ad_1]
The
The initial opportunity of this article is a video I saw on 7th
Vision Ethiopia conference in which my old and dear friend and colleague,
Dr, Befekadu Degefe, provides an in-depth analysis on economic requirements
development in Ethiopia. The analysis is premised on the shared municipality
assumption that the private sector is the engine of economic growth and
considers two possibilities with which this sector could be effective
developed. The first possibility is through a determined and systematic openness
to foreign investments. The second is, however paradoxical it may seem, through the state
patronage hosting a nationalist program.
The
obvious advantage of the first option is that it provides the Ethiopian economy
with the much needed capital, know-how and access to the market, all the more easily
it is in line with the fundamentally globalizing tendency of our time. An important
The implication of this policy is that the Ethiopian government cedes the major
part of its role in the management of the economy.
Second
for Befekadu, the choice to rely too much on foreign investment has two important reasons
drawbacks. Given that it is indeed necessary to reduce the economic role of
the state to develop the private sector, such a policy assumes that the sector
already exists and that state intervention prevents its growth. however, the
The truth about Ethiopia is that the private sector does not exist: it had begun
to sprout during the reign of Haile Selassie but was trampled by successive ones
governments to the point of extinction. In this condition, any without restrictions
openness to foreign investment, far from encouraging the development of a
national private sector, will result in a state of serious economic hardship
addiction. In what appears as a veiled criticism of the direction of the
existing government, Befekadu points out that a withdrawal of the economy
the role of the state in which the private sector is non-existent does not imply anything less
of a serious loss of sovereignty.
Unilateral vision of the role of the state in the economy
The other disadvantage of politics is its unilateral view of the economic role of the state. The idea that both the state ownership of the means of production and the intervention constitute an obstacle to the development of the private sector, while in principle it is true that the state can also be instrumental in the promotion of the private sector. Indeed, historical facts about economic development attest that the private sectors of the most developed liberal economies, including the United States, owe their growth to deliberate governmental policies. The implementation of protective measures and the provisional planning by the state, not its withdrawal, are necessary for the private sector to thrive. Thus stated, such a prerequisite for development seems easy to implement. Unfortunately, the only and hard to get by attribute is the availability of states that are truly committed to defending their country's national interests. When a state generates such a commitment, it naturally becomes inclined to devise policies to promote the private sector. In this way, the fundamental question of economic development is reduced to that of having a genuinely nationalist state.
True,
The general expectation is that a state, whatever its form, is standing
definition in defense of the national interest. But this does not mean that the
the defense includes the economic development of the country. Away from it:
traditional forms of political domination and modern perverse forms
governments primarily aim to protect the narrow interests of the data
elite, less to generate national wealth. The reason for this is that the
the condition for producing national wealth is different from political use
the power to ensure the hegemony of an elite over the economic life of a country.
In this last case, political power is used to exclude, that is, to reserve
the dominant elite whatever the wealth produced by the system by erecting political protections.
Its purpose is less to improve the production of wealth than to give the sentence
elite privileged and protected access to its control. Nothing prevents this
political system affirming that it is nationalist, except the fact that everything
factors that encourage the private sector, such as free competition, the
rule of law, protection of the national market against external competitors, incentives
of internal savings and investments, production of highly qualified citizens, the
the setting of national economic priorities, etc., are ignored or given to reality
service.
Speaking of what must be done in conjunction with the question of the state, Befekadu highlights the sad state of education in Ethiopia. Since its introduction, modern education has been designed to produce non-innovators and entrepreneurs, but people with a dependent mental state. The proof of this is that an Ethiopian crosses the various levels of modern education and graduates with one goal, which must be taken by someone. In accordance with the state of the economy, the education system is not designed to provide graduates who can invent and create jobs for other people. The discussions on education in Ethiopia focus on the question of how to teach and not what to teach, that is, on what kind of graduates we want to produce. Obviously, the private sector can not develop if the educational system does not produce self-sufficient and creative people.
Causes of the emergence of nationalist states
The inevitable follow-up question that comes from Befekadu's analysis is, of course, the question of knowing the cause or causes of the emergence of nationalist states. The question has inspired rich and varied academic studies that go beyond the scope of this article. I limit myself to the conclusion that I arrived after a thorough reflection on these studies (see my books, Meaning and development is Survival and modernization: the enigmatic present of Ethiopia). For most scholars of development, the question of economic development is best summarized in the formula "tradition versus modernity". It is about asking what motivates the elites to move away from order and traditional social values in order to marry modern settings and norms. What is traditional is linked to customs, authoritarian and ascendant, while the modern is innovative and based on results.
A
The inquiry into the history of modernization suggests that traditional elites embark
on the road to modernity when they clearly realize (often under the influence of)
enlightened political leaders) who need modern settings and values
preserve their social status. In fact, what is more motivating than self-preservation?
In other words, when the social order protects the politician and the economy
the hegemony of a traditional elite is threatened (the threat can be caused by
social crises, external invasions, internal dissensions, etc.), the dominant elite
has the opportunity to defend his status and interests by increasing
authority and repression or engage in the task of reforming society a
counter the threat. The first option can only delay the inevitable defeat of
the ruling class for the reason that its inability to find real solutions
the crisis calls for popular uprisings that finally lead to a revolutionary
climax. Experience invariably shows that the revolutionary solution attracts
society in a bloody and disruptive process that often ends up in
establishment of another authoritarian regime that is not better than the previous one
one.
Of
contrast, the second option, the path of reform has proven to be more
promising. The fact that the determination to reform comes from the clear
understand that more authority and repression do not provide the solution to
the crisis indicates that a genuine commitment to change is taking place. Most
of all, the fact that it concerns the survival of the ruling elite itself
the will to reform in a determination driven by personal interest and therefore more
reliable and consequential. I do not see a better way to make sense of this theory
of modernization rather than providing a quote from my book, Meaning and development. I write: "il
to drive towards industrialization arises from the need felt by the ruling classes of
counter the external or internal threat. The dominant classes become industrialized
the elites as soon as they accept change as the best way to preserve their interest
and power. So do their companies in companies governed by the standard
successfull. "Contrary to methods of seeking income and ascension as well
to political exclusions based on race, ethnicity and religion, the rule of
achievement of social promotion links to merit and effective contribution to the
advancement of society, from which only the perceived threat can be
removed.
The facts supporting the theory abound. Thus, Japanese industrialization was driven by perceived changes as necessary to counter the threat of colonization. The industrialization of the countries of Eastern Asia is hardly understandable unless we link it to the need to counteract the influence and spread of communism through the realization of economic progress. Likewise, the continuous wars between neighboring countries and the consequent need to support or oppose expansionist projects contribute considerably to explaining the industrialization of European countries and of North America.
An imperial autocracy that postponed the reform
It is interesting to note that,
at about the same time as the Japanese awakening at the imperative of modernization
and in response to the same analogous colonial threat, Ethiopia went through a
comparable awareness embodied by the rise of the emperor Tewodros. What were they?
Tewodros' efforts to end the era of principles and its failed project
manufacture the first cannon but saying indications on the need to
modernize changes to resist colonial assaults? Still highly aware of
the looming danger, the emperor Menilik opted for the different solution of
expansion to the south. He surmised that the integration of new territories
he would have provided him with the necessary human and material resources to save
the colonial danger. Unfortunately, the growing influence of foreign interests
coupled with the spread and consolidation of a landed nobility has generated the
the premises of an imperial autocratic system that postponed the need for reforms. We
I know what happened next: the 1974 revolution and the rise of the Derg, which he brought
to the submission of Ethiopia to the divisive and hegemonic rule of the TPLF.
Another chaotic, bloody and dangerous revolution was about to swallow the country when, due to ethnic inequality and the perverse government of the TPLF and in reaction to the popular uprisings, internal dissensions grew within the EPRDF . This political evolution puts Ethiopia back into the situation in which it can feed a nationalist reformist elite. That the will to reform came from within the EPRDF to the government and that this emerged from the clear understanding that the increase in repression, as claimed by the TPLF, is useless, is perfectly in line with the conditions that fashion modernizes the elites. Both the persistent policy of repression of the TPLF and the continuing popular uprisings have created the condition in which the survival of the elite who control power has become dependent on conceiving and implementing reforms that replace ethnic rights and cronyism with the standard of realization.
Process of institutional and structural changes
does
this means that, with the installation of Abiy as prime minister, Ethiopia is
out of the woods and on your way to a successful modernization? Of
Of course not, because one thing is to take a positive turn, one more
consolidate the turning point with institutional and structural changes. To start with,
nothing guarantees yet that the majority of the members of the EPRDF really is
committed to promoting a social order based on results. Secondly, group that
or defend the ethnic group as a political and economic right or request the
the hegemonic domain of a given ethnic identity continues to proliferate in the country. These
the last groups are all the more dangerous because they find a natural ally in the
promoter number one marginalized but not yet defeated of ethnic hegemony, or
the TPLF. Thirdly, in the face of increasing tensions and instability in the
social order following conflicts fomented by highly ethnic groups, Abiy
and his supporters could be forced to resort to authoritarian methods. In
Indeed, given that the primary role of the state is to protect the law and order, a return
authoritarianism could become inevitable, despite the repeated reluctance of Abiy
to contemplate such a result. Furthermore, seeing the weakness of opposition parties
and their profound ideological divisions, there is no guarantee that the coming
election will lead to a peaceful outcome. Above all, a defeat o
the weakening of the EPRDF will open the door to all kinds of scary possibilities,
in view of the fact that I do not see it as an alternative party or a coalition of opponents
the parts could emerge due to the weakness of the parts and their often wide ones
ideological disparities.
Such as
a fact, unless there is an amendment to the Constitution, it is a lot
difficult to see as an alternative party that would have a national reach
it could emanate from the current ethnic fragmented electorate in Ethiopia.
The more we become aware of the legal and ideological obstacles on our feet
against the increase of national parties, the more one realizes that the attempt to
defeat or weaken the current position and leadership of EPRDF offers
nothing but a situation that favors the ethno-nationalist parties, which will be then
foment disorder and violence to achieve their true goals. My fear is not that
the next elections will not be democratic but the result will be like this
fragmented that will hinder the formation of a government. All bets are deactivated
if the next elections the EPRDF with its present will not return to power
command. The effort to promote the transfer of power to Ethiopia by means of
democratic elections is commendable, but can also turn into imprudence or
naive idealism if the prevailing conditions are not favorable for a trustworthy
peaceful transition.
Considering the likelihood of a return to authoritarianism can rightly be characterized as a pessimistic prediction. However, even if authoritarian methods become unavoidable, everything is not necessarily bleak. Authoritarianism is not always a negative result as long as it continues to promote the order of attainment. Here it is imperative to distinguish between political authority used to protect privileges (whether based on ethnic, religious, gender or class rigidity rather than on social mobility) and authority used to promote a social order maintenance outcome . The distinction is contrary to the widespread opinion that democratization precedes and conditions economic development and modernization. In fact, a closer look at the history of developed countries shows that democracy is more a consequence of societies engaged in promoting the realization than a condition sine qua non of modernization. As indicated at the beginning of this article, what has to happen is the rise of the nationalist elites, that is, the elites committed to modernizing their societies in order to solve the crises that threaten their social position. What mainly drives them is not the concern for human rights or the equality of ethnic and religious groups, but the design and implementation of efficient methods to ward off threats. Thus conceived, their inspiration is not so humanitarian, at least at the beginning, as scientific, if by "science" we mean the design of efficient methods to solve problems. And a fundamental condition for obtaining development results is the end of all forms of cronyism and rigidity in favor of merit-based openness.
Maintenance of law and order
We often hear that democracy is nothing more than the very survival of Ethiopia as a country. Assuming that there is only one way out and, moreover, the hardest to reach, we turn to ourselves instead of opening various options. Yet, like Hölderlin he said, "where danger is, the saving power also grows". This truth has been verified by the rise of Abiy and his supporters. It may be good again if we make good use of authoritarianism in the event that this latter becomes necessary to protect the law and order threatened by the still violent consequences of two decades of governing ethnic divisions. Instead of the previous authoritarian systems with their sterile, divergent and ascending methods of government, there is the option for an authoritarianism inspired by nationalist elites and whose goal is to make social status conditional on merit rather than on ethnicity , religion, class, etc. ., affiliations. This form of authority is better defined by coaching rather than repression and extortion.
Source link
