Introduction

I have in my last article (The Search for Ideology-Legesse Zenawi’s Dilemma) tried to reveal and retrace the ideological base of Legesse Zenawi, malversation of Ethiopia and dictatorial measures of the last ten years of his seizure of power. Now completely “forgetful” of his Marxist-Leninist and Stalinist background, he has become quasi-religious of the advantages of free market (capitalist) economy for the betterment of the Ethiopian society. He has earlier never listened to the ideas or views of other peoples, except his usual derision and description of others as lackeys of capitalism. Though many people told him that the overwhelming majority of our people was under the clutches of Marxist-fascistic regime and needed a system based on individual initiative takers and entrepreneurs, foreign or domestic investors, educators, experts to revivify the economy, he was rebuking them for being reactionaries, who were to be fought and liquidated alongside with Col. Mengistu. Now without thorough discussion and conviction among the rank and file of his party organization, the savior of “modern Ethiopia” has designed and brought a capitalist ideology to be served on a silver platter to the Ethiopian people. The ideology he fought for is simply called “rotten, outmoded and baseless”, so that his comrade-in-arms are discredited. On his travel of hypnotic fantasy and imagination, his retinues are in a state of reveries, awesome and grateful to the “great revolutionary leader”, whose existence in power is seen as a guarantor of Ethiopian unity. At the same time the whole party apparatus of the so-called Marxist-Leninist League of Tigray (MLLT) and its cadres of oppression are mobilized to erode the Constitution and clamp down on the dissidents, opponents, journalists, students, farmers and workers by purging, imprisoning, killing, removing from their posts and chasing them to exile.

But, how is capitalism to be implemented in Ethiopia without the necessary prerequisites, such as the elementary and basic reforms of democratic and human rights? Is capitalism as a social system and from a historical perspective introduced by decrees and proclamations from above? Or is he compelled to do so in search of dollar millions as aid for his bankrupt economy by the orders of international capital administrators of the IMF, World Bank, etc. and the representatives of these huge financial organs? The globalization singsong, which is utterly one of the traps used for controlling the political social and economic development of a country has extreme consequences on the sovereignty of a country and especially for countries of the developing world. The very few but powerful financial owners, companies and influential persons of the world are capable of changing the policy of countries by blackmailing, dictating the market and taxation laws, withholding investment loans, moving and removing their capital, dumping prices by undermining domestic products, which eventually lead to bankruptcy and closure of important and strategic industries or companies, etc. There are many countries, which were once masters of their own destiny, abandoned their developmental efforts to be self-subsistent and become the underdogs by paying obeisance to the whims of big enterprises, rich countries, financial institutions and their official representatives. While Emperor Haileselassie was one of the first persons to enter the White House in recognition of his endeavor to work for the US, Legesse with his two weeks long sojourn in the US capital became one of the leaders of the third world countries to step in the top and secret corridors of the Pentagon Headquarters and IMF. Thus, his loyalty and officiousness as if he were a billionaire or chief executive of a multinational corporation and not as a leader of one of the world’s poorest countries is understandable. Ethiopians or others cannot fall victims to the wiles of his unscrupulous and unlawful regime by trying to hide behind odd and shaming ideas.

Incumbent politicians point with figures as the minister of finance of Ethiopia did that the rate of growth in Ethiopia will be 17%. This prognostication never known how it came is thoroughly a guess made out of how the dollar or euro lenders are willing to invest or cover some of the budget. The agriculture sector is still relying on how much rain is coming this year and the primitive practices of production. Foreign or domestic investment is entirely dependent on the attractiveness and competitiveness of the country compared to other countries in issues concerning the working force (education, wage, capacity), business environment (regulations, taxes, stability, buying power, etc) and infrastructure ( roads, transport costs, access to the sea, telecommunication, electricity, water, etc.). With the above factors in mind, the increase of growth rate of up to 17% is not only a speculation but also a wishful thinking, giving rise to a fraudulent and skewed conception of the socio-economic conditions of the country. Although the government with some measures, injections and cures from the World Bank, IMF and other financial organizations tried to attract investors, there has not been substantial inflow of investment or capital from potential and long-term capital owners for the last ten years.

Third world politics is so unpredictable as shown in today’s Ethiopia, that there will not be anyone who of freewill risks his capital and future payoffs. Thus, the root causes of this deficiency has to be tackled before singing to the tunes of capitalism. The only talking head of Ethiopia, Legesse wants to implement capitalism through a not worthy name called revolutionary democracy, where liberalism and pluralism both in the economic and political terms are hampered to take off. Although the whole idea of his is to hoodwink people as usual and divert people’s thoughts from the present crisis, which is the result of his misadministration, let’s briefly try to envisage the guiding principles and historical development of capitalism and make our own assessments. My aim is not to make deep analysis by presenting voluminous work, but is a short and tangible outline relating to capitalism and globalization to the Ethiopian conditions.

Capitalism and the issue of democracy

The mercantilist economy, where the wealth of a nation was pertained to the wealth of the sovereign in the form of precious metals and valuables, successively gave way to the development of popular economic nationalism. This in turn was followed by a shift from absolutism to democracy. The ideas and institutions of democracy changed the economic and political hegemony of the ruling class and enhanced the possibility of economic and political freedom of the nation’s population. This transformation first took place in England, where the democratic institutions enabled the public to participate in the government and decide on the fate of their country and on the creation of public welfare. Democratic patriotism in the form of sacrificing one’s life for the wellbeing of ones country and people was by far more inspiring than living and working for tyrants, who were unavailable and isolated in their own palaces from the real life of the citizens. The sanctity of national laws and Constitutions became the documents, irrespective of economic, political and social positions of the citizens. The goals of nations became to raise good citizens and patriots by educating them to love their country and flag, respect their history, heroes and culture, protect the Constitution, write and speak their languages, etc. Universal and critical books and free newspapers were allowed to inform, publish and spread among the people. Moreover, individual freedom in the form of free association to new ideological views and gatherings were guaranteed. Parties from rightist conservatives, liberal democrats to leftist Marxist workers conglomerations were allowed to ventilate their ideas and compete for recruitment of new members and voters. Parlamentarism as a system introduced individual rights and obligations to one another and the fate of the nation was in the ownership of all those who inhabit it. Thus, starting from the eighteenth century democracy became a weapon to do away with absolutism or authoritarianism.

The above reforms in the political and individual legal codes were paralleled mainly by economic nationalism to fulfil the well-being and independence of the population. The industrial revolution with many inventions, such as the railway locomotives, steam engines, telegraph, iron and steel plants, electricity, etc. did help to transform the means of production and increase productivity, so that to meet supply and demand of the society. A more protective measure was taken by levying tariffs on foreign products on the one hand while subsidizing domestic manufacturers on the other. By so doing nascent industries could be protected, businesses could flourish and at the same time stimulate the people to buy own products at fixed prices without fear for import and domination of foreign products in the market. Henry Clay of Kentucky in his Senate debate over the tariff system said “When gentlemen have succeeded in their design of an immediate or gradual destruction of the American system, what is their substitute? Free trade! Free trade! The call for free trade is as unavailing as the cry of a spoiled child in its nurse’s arms, for the moon or the stars that glitter the firmament of heaven. It never existed, it never will exist.”(1) Thus, any nation whether ages ago or now tending to be independent and wealthy must develop its own financial capital and manufacturing industries. The tariffs were very essential as these were used to fund important infrastructures and public spending. In the US, where the railroad track was 37 km in 1830 covered 333,040 km by 1890, an average increase of 5550 km per year!. The high tariffs on imported raw materials also enabled manufacturers to purchase, develop and refine new products based on internal supplies, giving employment opportunities to the urban or rural poor.

Increased production and education not only facilitated stimulation of economic nationalism and patriotism by drawing the villagers into cities but also exposed them to new jobs, new ideas, free political movements and associations that strengthened their national heritage and a fight for the nation and the well-being of their compatriots. The mightiness or greatness of nations were and are still inextricably linked with the economic prowess and national interest of the countries. With the rise of giant national corporations, the overproduction was and still is solved by finding spheres of influence as dumping grounds in the developing countries, which have given up the ability to develop and control the forces and mechanisms of capitalist mode of production. The only countries, which except the West and Japan have successfully embarked on the path of capitalist development, are the so-called Newly Industrialized Countries (NIC), such as Taiwan, South Korea, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand in South East Asia. Although there are different stages in their development, the countries in South East Asia had the priority of being situated in a volatile region, where communist upsurge was seen as a threat to the influence or interest of the West. The fight between communism and capitalism was to be waged not only on the development of mass destruction weapons but also on the battlefield of world economy.

The spread of capitalism was seen as a bulwark against the influences of Soviet communism. The relation to these countries, especially after the Korean War was therefore of geopolitical character and thereby the flow of capital was intensive and comprehensive. Big multinational corporations were directly or indirectly involved in the policy formulation and games of these countries in the fight against any opposition. The coup staged by the help of the CIA against the nationalist leader Sukarno, installation of the dictator General Suharto and mass killings of the members of the communist party were part of the deals to secure the natural resources of Indonesia to American interests. The same was true about the dictators of the Kuomitang party of Chiang KaiShek in Taiwan and the Generals in South Korea.

The involvement of CIA in plots of independent countries, where possessions of natural resources by American corporations were as a matter not mere coincidences but facts. The nationalist movement led by Mossadegh, which challenged the shah of Iran and confiscated the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was deposed by officers, who were financed by CIA. This in turn gave concessions of access to Iranian oil by Mobil, Gulf, Texaco, etc. Guatemalan elected President, who in 1953 attempted to carry out landform was replaced by rightists so that the United Fruit Company’s fruit plantations were spared from confiscation. President elect of Chile, Allende a reformist socialist leader, was killed to be followed by the worst dictator General Pinochet. The examples of intervention are too many to be listed here. The disadvantage of global commerce, namely ownership of key and strategic resources by big corporations are thus instructive and alarming.

The talk about Globalization

Globalization in its true meaning has not created any establishment of whatsoever to narrow the widening gap between the rich and poor. It is an illusion to believe that the industrialized countries willingly and benevolently invest so that countries in the third world share the cake alike. What we see instead is the “globalization” of products and markets within the premises of the advanced countries. The global webs are high-value enterprises, replacing the old high-volume enterprises. Raw materials are bought mostly from the third world countries with prices, fixed at the stock markets in the West, wares, assemblage, spare pats are processed in a chain like-structure in some countries, marketing and advertisements are done in others, design engineering and styling are located again in other countries, etc. Such cross-border links and international trade are therefore mostly carried out within the confines and limits of the industrialized and NIC, where profit-making and sharing are of utmost importance for the big corporations and share-holders. The fall of the communist regimes in Eastern Europe has also open up a golden opportunity for corporations to hire workers, who are happy to sell their labor for comparable or less wages than some countries in South East Asia, who have higher education level and facilities and whose countries are located in the vicinity of the most lucrative European market. Investment and aid in this region are therefore enormous both of strategic, geographical, historical and other factors. Though many industrialized countries and multinational firms are investing beyond their borders and mostly in the advanced world, they are fully aware of their national economic interests and profits. Thus, the increase of profitability is closely related to cross-border investments and accessibility to the big markets of the world. Looking into “globalization” as today’s savior of all evils of inequality as advocated by the supporters or leaders of globalization and the protests against it in the meetings of such places as Seattle, Washington DC, Melbourne, Gothenburg, Genoa, etc., would give us some understanding on the demerits, drawbacks and problems associated with national sovereignty and development of independent capital owners.

Most of the decisions made in luxurious conference halls involve mighty industrial and financial owners, statesmen and researchers from the capitalist economies. The question they dwell on is not how to create jobs so that people in their respective countries have employment in order to ensure the living conditions and futurity of their citizens. On the contrary it is how the 1/5th or 20 to 80 society could be materialized and the redundant labor occupied with something else, the so-called leaders of globalization have been discussing in their closed rooms. The future world model of the formula 20 to 80 is considered to be on the horizon and as a leading theme for the next hundred years, where voluntary, athletic, youth, women, etc. clubs and organizations are to replace government organizations in taking care of fellow-beings. If the world elite and billionaires are dreaming of 20 to 80 society, then the wealth distribution among the industrialized and developing countries are facts, which are already established on this scale. The richest 1/5th of the countries of the world are already account for 84.7% of the world’s accumulated GNP, 84.2% of world trade, 85.5% of all savings, 85% of world’s timber consumption, 75% of metal production and finishing and 70% of energy use. The promise or talk from the rich countries about putting 1% of their GNP to developing countries have not yet achieved the desired target. On the contrary, some countries are rather decreasing their contribution to insignificance, such as Germany from 0.34% in 1994 to 0.31% in 1995 and others such as USA give approx. 0.25%.

The unemployment rate has several times hit the headlines in many industrialized countries. 10-20% unemployment is not unrealistic in many countries, such as Germany, Italy, Great Britain, Spain, Sweden, France, Austria, etc. The increasing gap between the rich and poor, people living under the poverty line, the homeless, etc. are not simply ascribed to one’s own failure but are results of the ever decreasing revenues of the state, which could not easily be recouped for the losses of taxation in the industrialized countries. On the other hand, employment is open to those, who have “sharp minds and high skills”, irrespective of their background, country and skin color. Brain-drain as is now a success story for many firms in the West. “We bring those who are smart. Since the start thirteen years ago, we could through our effectiveness increase our turnover from practically zero to 6 billion dollars. We employ people through computers, they work on computers and fire them through computers”, said John Gage from the leadership of the American computer firm Sun Microsystems. Thus, unemployment, insecure work conditions and brain-drain are the main characteristics of the think-tank of globalization.

Through global maneuvers and moves, the international capital is bringing states and their social order out of balance. Threatening to withdraw its capital and industries from the countries within which it is established, it demands tax deductions, subsidies and free infrastructures. Countries can no longer control or tame financial institutions and big corporations to take their societal engagement and obligation by paying taxes, higher wages or employ citizens. Financial capital has become anonymous, where huge sums of shares, money, bonds are in a matter of seconds are emptied and suddenly placed in other countries. Profits are declared and announced in a tiny island or country, normally called as taxation paradises with little or no taxation at all. Protection of the interests of the shareholder and his eventual profits has become the prime objectives of the management of finance capital. Consequently, the new liberal ideas of the non-interference and non-ownership of the state in the affairs of enterprises, countries are competing with each other to show “as the best in the class” to deregulate, privatize state owned companies, liberalize the taxation system, make structural adjustment and cut the working force by tens and thousands, demobilize their armies, etc. as remedies prescribed by the World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Trade Organization (WTO).

Huge sums are borrowed from these institutions under their terms and conditions to be paid with interest rates, often depleting the meager resources of the countries from their export earnings, resulting in a chain reaction and vicious circle of borrowing still more and paying more. Let’s for example take the case of “operation peso shield” in Mexico in 1995, named after the so-called “operation desert shield” of the Gulf War. Mexico, which otherwise is considered as stable and well-to-do country and fulfilled all the demands of IMF on reorganization of the economy, was on the brink of total bankruptcy, when the peso lost 30% of its value to dollar and the last dollar reserves were completely drained. Panic broke out, when the big banks on Wall street and investment funds, who invested more than 50 billion dollars in Government bonds, shares and debt were to lose their capital. Others with insider information could instantaneously remove huge sums to other banks abroad. In order not to create similar reactions in other developing countries, the IMF, the Clinton administration and the Bank of International Settlement (BIS) were forced to quickly act by contributing a total of 50 billion dollars for the crisis stricken country Mexico to pay all its debts. The same problem was also encountered in the countries of South East Asia, which were hard-pressed during the 1999 crisis with similar rescue action as in Mexico. Although similar loans and actions were taken by the IMF, World Bank, etc., these countries have not yet recovered from the financial shock of the invisible hands of international financial market. The international capital is moving at a speed of light through a worldwide branch and complex of computer networks to make profits. In 1995, BIS reported that under an average of one day there was an exchange of means to a value of more than 1.5 trillion dollars ($1.5,000,000,000,000 or 840 times the annual budget of Ethiopia!). Thus, international finance capital in search of profit can swiftly change investments or dismantle the very foundations of a society and thereby jeopardize the safety and security of a country is clear for most people of the world except for the leader of Ethiopia Legesse Zenawi. One does not deserve to be charged as bin Ladin (the terrorist) or as afraid of the world (hyena) to devour Ethiopians as he explained once to the BBC reporter, to understand the simple notion between developing ones country’s capital owners and playing a mouthpiece for international capital.

Conclusion

The giant nation India, which got its independence some 50 years ago did make great economic strides thanks to the important task of nation-building “from the bottom up” and Mahatma Ghandi’s symbolism of the spinning-wheel concept, which turned into a cult. He replied once to the allegation of trying to bring about a death-like sameness in the country, as “I did not want the poet to forsake his music, the farmer his plough, the lawyer his brief and the doctor his lancet. They are to spin only thirty minutes every day as a sacrifice. I have indeed asked the famishing man or woman, who is idle for work whatsoever to spin for a living and half-starved farmer to spin during his leisure to supplement his resources.” The spinning-wheel gradually became accepted and was seen as the center of rural Indian economics, where round it were built up anti-malaria campaigns, sanitation improvements, village dispute settlements, conservation of soil and breeding of cattle and different beneficent activities required for the resuscitation of the small village. The economics of the spinning-wheel were thus the economics of a new village creation, intended to make the country self-subsistence relying on the capacity and ability of the people to make a change. The economy, which was to be centered around the agrarian population of Ethiopia in order to produce crops and make Ethiopia self-subsistent has long been abandoned by the regime of Legesse. Instead of the breadbasket of Africa, Ethiopia has increasingly become dependent on the hand-outs and charities of rich countries. The regime, which has been in power for the last 10 years cannot blame others for its failure not to feed its own people. Political intrigues and wangling with its army of frivolous cadres have been used for purposes of liquidating opposition parties, killing, imprisoning and discrediting people and not for holy purpose of closely working together with the peasant majority as an army of “green revolutionary” workers.

Oblivious of the power and determination of the people to make an economic and political empowerment, the PM in charge of running the affairs of the country has so far shown no vision of whatsoever except jeopardizing the national interest and sovereignty of the country. Violations of democratic and human rights are rampant. A state terrorism is staged on high scale by using the security and police forces. Prominent persons, party functionaries and workers, press people, government employees, business people, etc. are arbitrary arrested without the due course of the law. The Constitution of the country is time and again violated and the judiciary body, which tried to be independent is under the control of the PM. South Africans, who lived under the apartheid regime of the minority rule and suffered a lot have shown the route to reconciliation without any grudge against each other and calling names as enemies. Ethiopia is probably the last country, which has the not too worthy phrase “enemy of the people” in its vocabulary, alleging people working within the frames of the Constitution for the defense of human and democratic rights. In short, the conditions of stability with democratic institutions and capitalist economy to attract foreign investors or Ethiopians are dashed for now by the authoritarian rule of Legesse and his cronies. Accusations on corruption charges have already shown the ever shaky ground for investment.

Policy formulations to secure long-term income revenues from tariffs, protection of Ethiopian products to generate income, investment, employment and non-closure of industries of strategic importance, advancement of clear and clean bureaucracy for investors, engagement of the public through creation of cottage and small industries, stimulation of the economy through endowments and subsidies, education of irrigation skills and conservation of water and soil among farmers, demonstration and introduction of high yield seeds, etc., etc. However, without defining the main courses of direction toward implementation of the capitalist way of production, the communist body and the capitalist tongue of Legesse Zenawi are duplicities not to be bought by conscious customers on the Ethiopian free market. He cannot simply expect people to take his statement at its face value.

As far as sovereignty and defense of one’s own country is concerned, the unpatriotic behavior of the PM has shown that he can go to great lengths to dismantle the very foundations of what makes Ethiopia a unique country. The history of the country and its heroes (except during the war with Ethiopia) have been obliterated from the text books to be replaced by and limited to a centenary to fit to the Eritrea description of colonialism. He was more preoccupied with helping Eritrea both during the armed struggle and after Eritrea got its independence. The PM’s avowed despise for the Ethiopian flag is among others a vivid example of instigating Ethiopian disunity. His comparability during the recent war with Eritrea about Eritreans feeling more nationalistic than Ethiopian is another living example. His assertion to let Eritrea occupy Zalambessa and other parts by accepting the technical arrangement forwarded by the mediators is also another betrayal of historical significance. His rejection of the possibility to get access to the sea was a unilateral decision, destined to frustrate the national interest of the country. How is it possible then to have a patriotic youth, dedicated to work for the common good, destiny and well-being of Ethiopia and Ethiopians? Love and self-sacrifice for one’s country are and have been the main pillars for human existence.

The talk about globalization by Legesse shows that its implication, signification and consequences are beyond the scope of his understanding. The capitalist boom in South East Asia and his massive criticism of the West for not investing in Ethiopia shows his total blunder of historical account. The epochs are different and what we have now is a system, where one of the competing hegemonies has been removed from the scene for ever. Massive contributions and investments for the sake of industrializing a country in a global scale, especially at this juncture where profit comes more than anything else, has not taken place in our immediate vicinity. Thus, the speech at Harvard was out of its context and embarrassing. Deep analysis and not catchwords or slogans is in its place to convince people about an event, economic policies, ideological thoughts, etc., which by one way or another affect the lives of millions of people in Ethiopia. Trying to dress in a globalization suit has the consequences of being undressed naked before the public. The same was true about the imported word of Bonapartism, which lacked any kind of sagacity and comparability to the Ethiopian conditions. In search of deceitful ideas or rather as a dilettante, Legesse will up come with “new” trends and it is our duty to unmask his shallow talk and fight back his ignorance.

(1) Fredrich List, National System of Political Economy (1840) Reference

1. H. P. Martin and H. Schumann, The Globalization trap, 1996
2. B. R. Nanda, Mahatma Ghandi, 1981