Editorials
|
Views on the Governance of Eritrea By Tekle Melekin (3/10/2004)
Introduction
For years, I have been confronted in discussions that often led to the question: “What would your organization have done if it were the Government today?” The question was usually posed by defenders of the dictatorial regime. Their defense mechanism usually ended by quoting something like the Tigrinia proverb: “nteAzabay semay qerebaU” (the sky is just nearby for a spectator).
Yes, what would the ELF-RC do what the dictator has not done? Where and in which fields are the grave mistakes of the regime and what remedies did the ELF-RC have in stock for Eritrea? I am mentioning this subject because I feel there are still many who have not yet grasped the real history and content of the Eritrean Revolution, in particular that of the ELF which is in its fullness represented by the mainstream ELF-RC. We also have those who always thought and took for granted that the history of the Isayas-led organization is the only history of the revolution.
Many factors make it essential that a clear response be given to the question mentioned above in order to help create general public awareness, and for the benefit of those who genuinely wonder and worry about the future of Eritrea. We don’t need to argue about the fact that the majority of our people are already fed-up with the government in the country. Yet, this is the same government that people have been defending with the hope that it would prove to be what they wished it to be. But failed expectation is giving way to new ideas about how the country should be led. Many Eritreans could be spending sleepless nights thinking about what will happen after Isayas. Discussions are leading to questions like: What program and which organization or organizations are to be relied to guarantee a peaceful transition to a democratic, prosperous, united and socially just Eritrea? This worry is really genuine. I believe that one has to be able to visualize an alternative for a change to the better. It is also true that at this time the supporters of the existing regime take the opportunity to propagate against any other organization that they fear would present a better alternative. They do this to give the picture that things will get worse, that the dictator has at least managed to hold the country together, and that no one should wish it to become another Somalia etc. etc..
One cannot build a nation by a sheer pride of being Eritrean while a dictator is destroying all the values we had. Why insist on empty pride while those values and energies that could have helped Eritreans individually and collectively to progress and develop fast. It was only recently that people got proud because “they thought” they had a “special” leader. Some worshipped him sheepishly. Many rejected their patriotic brothers and sisters in the opposition and trusted others across the border or borders. Yes, it was only until recently that many of the Eritrean Diaspora willingly gave all their savings – money saved for their children, or for old-age security - to the dictator who enslaved our people and killed all possibilities for prosperity of the people as individuals and as communities.
Many Eritreans thought for decades that we were the most “developed” country in the Horn of Africa. This illusion had, therefore, blinded us from looking for the right solution which would help us develop our newly born nation. We became stubborn with no experience of our own, as a free state, at hand in order to compare and choose what is best for our people.
Today we all are full of ugly information that comes from Eritrea. People are suffering because there is a nation wide poverty that has never been experienced even during the colonial era. People are dying because there is no medication. The productive force of the country is hand tied partly because many of them are holding guns along the border line or in Sawa or working in a slave type hard labour planned by the dictator. Just now I won’t write on why the dictator chose the above mentioned plan/tactic but one thing that has to be mentioned is that all those working for the dictator are not paid for their service or labour. We all know that the nominal amount of Nakfa they get is nothing compared with high prices of commodities and artificially blown cost of living , plus the low value of the Eritrean currency. It is also evident that the purchasing power of our people’s income is too low, a fact that discourages production and development.
PFDJ’s Total Neglect of the Private SectorI intend to present explanation on some programmatic declarations of the ELF-RC in the governance of Eritrea. But before doing that, it would be important to point out some of the serious blunders that the PFDJ regime committed in failing Eritrea and Eritreans from doing better. The list of those blunders, though known to us, is too long to list down sector by sector and by each area of activity. I will for the time being limit my observation on the private sector. When I write on this sector, it includes not only the import-export sector and internal distribution mechanisms, but also the details in the trade and commercial areas up to shop-keeping activities. While on their euphoric celebrations of the defeat of the Derg regime, our people were thinking of the days ahead and wrongly believed that the often dreamt era of Harestai Hires, negaday nged had finally come to be true.
I believe that Eritreans, as we witnessed it, possessed relatively high technical skills and are good at enterprising and taking calculated risks. A good number of Eritreans had succeeded and became prosperous both in Eritrea and abroad. Many of these relatively rich people contributed to the revolution but had little opportunity to do so in the economic reconstruction of their liberated country because of the mistakes of the regime. We all remember that, immediately after independence, many Eritreans became very much interested in helping their newly born nation, as well as themselves. Where are they now? What repelled them and their capital back? Who lost?
The experiences of the 90`s were really shameful. The government wanted everything for itself as if it is governments alone that bring about development. Discouragements were done in many different ways. The government was quick at saying:
These were only a few of the examples one can give of the obstacles set to drive away citizens with capital and precious idea. One of the most mean things the government did (as I heard it from compariots) was to steal projects/ideas from individuals by copying the original and then telling the persons concerned that the government already had exactly the same project. One could not believe one’s ears to hear that many private companies that people believed were private were found out to be government owned with a private person’s license. I am sure many of my readers know many other instances that crippled any progress from being made in private business and commerce.
What is the cause and essence that has led the Isayas regime to discourage people with capital? The real reason why people with capital were not needed was that the dictator understood the fact that economic power would create a challenging and strong social strata of owners of capital which can be followed by political test to the real ability of the government, Isayas in our case – and this is something the dictators can not stand.
Isayas is trying to convince our people that he can do everything that the private sector can do. He can build bridges, roads, houses, railroads, airports, hospitals, ports etc. Yes, any other government would do the same whether the results are better or worse; because that is why it is there. Some people see these constructions for the first time done by their own government and, therefore, think it is some kind of a wonder. This is exactly what the dictator’s calculation is because whatever you do in the country is surely new and worth appreciation.
The main issue is, nevertheless, how to plan for the overall development of the people and the nation. Taking into consideration the many sidedness of activities that are demanded and are necessary in order to generate real development, the activities of today’s Eritrean government are very far from it. It is true that infrastructure is a necessity and premise for development. Yet, real development should have the full participation of all citizens; their creativity, initiative and capital. Their spirit, wisdom and intellect should be freely released for an all-round development of the nation. This is where the role of the private sector comes. That is when the ability of a government is tested and challenged.
What about the role of the government?
Government should be there to lay down all the necessities that facilitate both short- and long- term goals for development, and through its laws and policy directives should encourage investments, especially by citizens; try to guide the allocation of capital towards those areas that can benefit the development of the nation by taking into consideration available natural as well as human resources. Foreign investment is essential and its importance can be told in a separate writing. What one should note here is that whenever there is no strong local private sector, it is up to the government to fill the gap, and this is something (a situation) that our government has consciously dcreated today.
A government can have a development strategy, a plan and a goal to be realized while the result can be less or more than expected depending on many factors. A government development plan that takes only government as the actor is less sure to succeed than a plan that gives freedom to its private sector to participate. It is, however, understandable if one argues that a government plan (that takes only itself as the actor) is more reliable to succeed; I may say yes to it only if we agree that the plan can never be a broad, all-covering and a complex one whose result can sometimes go beyond the expected one. Individuals in the private sector initiate, plan and execute things to get their benefit which can also be to the benefit of the nation if administered and controlled properly. For instance ELF-RC`s economic program rightly stipulates of “Providing citizens the incentives to produce, and stimulating their creative capacity to maximize productivity.”
Eritrea today is at the mercy of the government alone. It is sad to say that people with sufficient capital and knowledge/know-how are distancing themselves from the inflexible and oppressive regime which has closed all doors to curtail the participation of private businesses and enterprises in the economic reconstruction of our country. The cottage industry-like activities that has been propagated through the government media cannot be the last resort of what Eritreans can do. Eritreans are capable of coping up with the higher/up to date way of producing those products that the government has been doing to satisfy expectations of sociologists intersted in underdevelopment.
The ELF-RC and its Economic Program
Taking the diversity of opposition forces in our complex country, it would be unfair to conclude categorically that the only solution to the political, social and economic problems of Eritrea is the solution the ELF-RC has, although the organization is of great conviction that its program covers all that is needed to lead and set the system of governance at the right track . In fact, whatsoever program one may have, it must be subject to a process of change and development depending on the magnitude of challenges encountered. In other words, experience and practical translation of the program may demand changes or amendments that should be applied with openness and great flexibility.
First to restate the obvious, the ELF-RC is for democratic multi-party system that promotes equality, social justice and peaceful coexistence and cooperation with all neighbouring peoples. In the economic sphere, the ELF-RC program states that the organization will promote mixed-economy in Eritrea. The essence of this type of economy is completely opposed to what is practiced in Eritrea today. Mixed economy is an organic combination of the state owned and the private owned sectors. The state will lay all the groundwork that the private sector needs to lead its activities. The state will facilitate all necessities that the private sector requires. There are many ways of helping the private sector to initiate new investments of which loan with lower interest is one. The state may, if necessary, control (or be partner in) industries that are key to the development of the country and releases them when it deems them necessary and when situations arise. This economic policy opens the opportunities for all citizens access to the country’s resources and encourages the private sector to play its developmental role as planned.
Exploitation and development of the country’s resources will have the priority attention. Small producers must be encouraged and maybe subsidized at the beginning to make them able to exploit the country’s resources and reach to the extent of not only satisfying local needs but also to boost exports.
Diversification of exportable commodities need to be encouraged so that the country should not rely only on a couple of products whose failure results to a vertical fall in the national income that takes down many sectors with it.
We hear many countries claiming to have democratic systems while results (in the developing countries) vary. We have surely noticed that many countries that claim to have democracy as their system are still economically poor with failed development plans. The fact is that slogan for democracy does not solve any problem unless it is genuine, practical and with full understanding and conviction of the people . Genuine democracy is that which empowers people who become committed to it. Such a process goes hand in hand with developments in all sides of life in a society. Based on decades long history of developing countries and observations; It would be a sort of naivity to forget the role of external forces in challenging development, peaceful transition and sustainability (a subject that should be treated separately).
As shown in the ELF-RC official website, Nharnet.com (to internet surfers), the economic policy of the organization shows what the ELF-RC would do if it is entrusted by the Eritrean people to guide the nation to economic prosperity. The following headings are from the program of the organization:
A. ECONOMIC POLICY
The ELF-RC struggles for: A.1. Adoption of mixed economy. A.2. Guaranteeing a well-considered policy on national and foreign investment. A.3. Ensuring fair distribution of wealth. A.4. Adopting progressive taxation system compatible with personal incomes. A.5. Ensuring state revenues to finance public projects geared to alleviate the burden of low-income earners. A.6. Establishing study centers for development. A.7 Introducing agricultural, commercial, techno-industrial projects geared to job creation.
A.8. Encouraging private and public capital investment. A.9. Developing transportation and communication. A.10. Harnessing agriculture to provide for basic subsistence needs of ordinary citizens. A.11. Enacting statutes to protect forests and wildlife. A.12. Promoting a strategy that eases housing problems and ensures the needs of modern living. A.13. Adopting an economic strategy that targets the narrowing and balancing of development gaps on all levels, and ensuring farming and animal rearing sectors to support people’s well being and overall economic progress. A.14. Encouraging co-operative ventures. A.15. Ensuring that land is owned by the people; and that the state should, under well defined legal checks, manage land vital to common national interest such as strategic minerals, roads and communications network.
B. ON AGRICULTURE AND ENVIRONMENT
The majority of our people are rural inhabitants and practice farming and animal breeding with small fraction of the overall population engaging in livestock rearing and fishing. Thus, agriculture must get commensurate attention to cater for basic needs of the people and support economic development. Thus, the ELF-RC strives for : B.1. Preservation of soil and forests; and for programmes promoting agriculture as a base for woodwork and animal product industries. B.2. Studies for water resources and dam building. B.3. Modernization of farming, pasture, animal breeding and wide use of veterinary services. B.4. Protection of marine life and development of this sector. B.5. Utilization of rivers and streams for irrigation. B.6. Development of modern techniques of farming. B.7 Combating desertification and ecological degradation.
|
Contact Us at: webmaster@nharnet.com