|
Ethiopia’s
Land is not a Saleable Social Product
Adal
Isaw
adalisaw@yahoo.com
February
21, 2008
The
creation of property and the kind of ownership right that should be
ascribed to it, is one of the many pressing political, economic, and
social issue that Ethiopia is facing today. This issue compels the
government to be involved to a greater or lesser extent, to arbitrate and
resolve claims of ownership in manners that incorporates its economic
policy and the democratic system of governance it is espousing. Land is an
example of such political, economic, and social issue that induces a
lively discourse and counter discourse among those who have differing
ideological perspective. Those who advocate to scrap the present land
policy of EPRDF, tirelessly argue by highlighting the right that an
individual posses for ownership, convinced that land is meant to be sold
and held solely as private property. In contrast, those who adhere to the
current day land policy, passionately contend that land is not of the
property kind that can be categorized as that which can be created and
produced much like any other property.
By virtue of being naturally immune from
becoming a social product that one invests or works to create, land in
Ethiopia is in its own singular class of an absolute social property. Land
is also a natural given to all those who happen to reside on it, and from
which the complete necessities of what life demands can be produced to
benefit the great many of them. The whole point here is that land is not a
social product and cannot be claimed as an absolute property. In fact,
even those social products that have clear rightful owners cannot for that
matter be claimed as an absolute property, by those who happen to invest
and work on them, and here is the reason why.
Consider a hermit inventor working alone in
his garage without any assistance, on a project to invent a highly
sophisticated braking system for a fast car. Can you imagine this inventor
to be unaware of the vast quantity of social knowledge on a brake system
for fast cars? Of course not. This hermit inventor would have had no clue
as to how to go about creating a new braking system, had it not for all
the accumulated social knowledge that he had received in the first place.
Even what this hermit inventor discovers is, therefore, not a private
creation. It is, in a fundamental sense a social product, and any absolute
claim of ownership on the new braking system by the hermit inventor is
thus groundless, making the idea of self-contained, atomized and hermit
individuals creating property out of themselves, unconnected and
unindebted to the greater society, quite absurd.
Nonetheless, an individual is perfectly
with his own natural right, to have his own resident and all of the
property that may help to enhance his own way of life. However, at issue
is whether an individual is entitled to hold land in absolute term as his
own private property for use as he deems it proper, and also whether EPRDF’s
categorization of land as an absolute social property is an undesirable
regulation that has to be changed, for the sake of an assumed efficiency
of production and investment incentive.
By in large, opponents of EPRDF land policy
argue that decategorization of property engenders efficiency of production
and investment incentive, thereby creating wealth and better life. Not
quite, adherent to the current day land policy counter argue-quoting the
lesson that history taught those who are endowed with the responsibility
of coining a land policy, that when property rights in relation to land
ownership are unrestrained, an economic inequality of the highest order
emerges-creating the greater possible divide between the haves and the
have-nots. The lesson in Kenya, South Africa, Colombia, Brazil, Jamaica,
needless to say sums up the whole argument against the scraping of the
present day land policy of Ethiopia.
What then is the motive for those who
advocate to scrap the current day land policy of EPRDF? In a way, what
exactly is the ideological perspective of those who would like to put land
in the hand of an individual in absolute terms, unrestricted by any
regulation? Or, simply put, what is being asked by those who want to do
away with the current EPRDF land policy?
What is being asked by those who are
opposing the current day land policy of Ethiopia is not something short of
the absolute right of an individual to own land and use it solely for any
purpose he deems it proper. Their ideological claim is in line with what
is termed as market-oriented land reform that the developed world is
pressing on the so called third world countries such as ours-through
Structural Adjustment Program. The implementation of the Structural
Adjustment Program and market liberalization policies means the
privatization of communal lands of the indigenous peoples. Central to this
market oriented land reform are, one, the abolishment of cooperatives by
way of de collectivizing production, two, the lifting of restriction on
land sale to outsiders, and three, the abolishing of protective measures
against the eviction of the indigenous peoples; all of these, in the name
of production efficiency and investment incentives.
Consider an American multinational
corporation with a trillion-dollar capital at its disposal for investment:
This corporation hopes to purchase massive land from Ethiopia for
multifaceted purpose. In fact, the corporation had inquired last year to
buy and hold the massive virgin land of Sidamo, had EPRDF agreed to its
inquiry. Disappointed, the corporation is using every arsenal there is,
including CUD and HR2003, to change the current day land policy of EPRDF.
Had the corporation succeeded in its endeavor, it would have exported
coffee, explored for natural resources, employed the Sidamo indigenous
peoples for bare minimum, and would have sold their own water back to them
at a price they can barely afford, and evict them if they rise to
resist-merely because it holds their land as its own private property in
exchange for perishable amounts of dollars it handed to their government
by way of market-oriented land reform. This is the least of all the
dangers that the Ethiopian peoples will face, if land is to be sold and
acquired in absolute terms to be used privately.
As a result of having been able to protect
our beloved country from the crushing jaws of European colonizers, our
ancestors have managed to hand us our land with unadulterated communal
ownership. Had they failed, we would have found ourselves in the mist of
intricate claim and counter claim of ownership of our own land with those
who happen to have the imperial paper work for it. What our ancestors paid
in full with their blood should not be lost in the name of production
efficiency and investment incentive-both of which that we’re achieving
as we speak, without compromising our whole livelihood. It’s therefore
to the best interest of the Ethiopian peoples, that the land of Ethiopia
should not be allowed and considered to be a social product, saleable to
the best bidder for absolute private ownership. Remember, to own land
privately in absolute term amounts to owning those whose life is dependent
on it.
|
