I remember, the last election in Tigray where I was really absorbed, particularly during the debate on political platforms when the Opposition invariably subscribed to Social Democracy. I must say, however, neither ባይቶና nor ዉናት elaborated on the essence of Social Democracy much less its relevance in an independent Tigray.
Here, I will try to dot the genesis of Social Democracy particularly in the Nordic nations where the reader can glean if the tenets and mechanisms of Social Democracy can be applied in the aftermath including in the foreseeable future of independent Tigray.
First though, what do the experts tell us about Social Democracy? They say, it is a reformist political movement advocating a gradual transition from capitalism to socialism by peaceful, democratic means. Typical tenets include the right of all citizens to education, healthcare, workers compensation and freedom from discrimination.
Certainly, the above definition appears to be problematic, for capitalism in the first place is not gradually replaced with socialism where the former is used by the state to provide basic provisions for the marginalized in the society through income redistribution instead.
Historically, particularly after 1848, when the revolution against the monarches [Italy, Germany, Austria including France] failed, the liberals who expected the realization of Marxist “prophecy” to come to pass, were left disillusioned and opted to revise the Marxist credo instead when they dropped the idea of violent revolution but to use capitalism as a vehicle by the state for income redistribution including providing basic provisions—health care, education, pension, and narrowing income inequality among other things.
The proposal of the socialists—short of violent revolution—found a wider reception by the status quo in Europe when the communists were pushed aside, so much so that gradually, Social Democracy not only took roots particularly in Western Europe but became the norm and way of life as well. Question is, how did they make it work and became impressively effective particularly in the Nordic states?
Here is a historical perspective mostly taken from the book titled, “Postwar: A History of Europe Since 1945” by Tony Judt. Scandinavia historically poor, it was also a region of forests, farms, fisheries with a handful of primary industries where most of them were in Sweden. Labour relations in Sweden and Norway especially were chronically troubled by conflict where the strike rate in both countries was the highest in the world during the first decades of the twentieth century, for instance.
That said however, after World War One, the Scandinavian socialist parties largely abandoned the radical dogma and revolutionary ambitions they shared with other European socialist movements of the “Second International” and in the course of the 1930s, they moved towards a historic compromise between Capital and Labor. Moreover, their political prospects rested upon extending their appeal to the overwhelmingly rural populations of the region. The pact between Capital and Labor; and appealing to the rural regions were the key to the success of the Social Democrats. The appeal to the rural areas for political support was unique so much so that Marx’s disdain for them when he said, “idiocy of rural life” and Lenin’s dislike for the “Kulaks” went against the grain so to speak.
The Social Democratic parties were the vehicle through which traditional rural society and industrial labour together entered the urban age. The Scandinavian welfare states that evolved after 1945 had their origins, then, in the two social pacts of the 1930s: between employees and employers, and between labor and farming. The social services and other public provisions that came to characterize the Scandinavian model reflected these origins, emphasizing universality and equality—universal social rights, equalized incomes, flat rate benefits paid from steeply progressive taxation. They thus stood in a stark contrast to the typical continental European version in which the state transferred or returned income to families and individuals, enabling them to pay in cash for what were in essence subsidized private services—unemployment insurance and health care in particular.
The above stated quasi historical thread remains to be theoretical at best or a semi-academic curiosity with respect to Tigray, precisely because, Tigray would have to enter into reconstruction phase first and foremost pretty much from ground zero where her capital including her labor force is rendered moot when her enemies set out to turn her back to the stone ages. The agrarian sector which makes up the bulk of Tigray was not spared from the onslaught either where in fact it was the most damaged.
And thus, at this point in time, it may sound a bit lofty or even misplaced when one talks Social Democracy as an alternative and a competing political platform with other political, economic and social policies that can fit-in in an independent Tigray. The intent was a food for thought so to speak and a perspective that might one day be relevant albeit the need for it is in a distant future.