MATRIZ DE ANÁLISIS DE LOS DIARIOS DE CAMPO

On 12 September 1974, Ethiopia entered a new era, one of military rule, after its long-standing Imperial administration through hereditary line. A Military Council, locally known as theDergue (literally ‘a Committee’) seized political power in 1974 (Girma, 1987:3) by ousting the Emperor from the Palace. The assumption of power by the military ‘put an end to a dynasty that traced its origins to King Solomon and the Queen of Sheba’ (Bahru, 2002:235). Immediately after its assumption of power, it dissolved the then existing bicameral parliament and restricted, by law, any form of dissent including peaceful assembly and demonstration (Andargachew, 1993:71; Bahru, 2002:236). Furthermore, in terms of political and economic philosophy, the ‘West’ oriented capitalist path of development of the feudo-capitalist system of the Imperial era became redirected eventually in terms of ideological orientation towards a communist path of development (Henze, 1989:11).

At the initial phases of the military reign, it appeared that the Dergue did not have a clear ‘road map’ as to the direction of its economic policy and ideology. With a view to rallying public support it declared that its motto was to be ‘Ethiopia Tikdem (literally ‘Ethiopia First’) an apparently ideology-neutral motto but a nationalist and patriotic slogan. However, the military gradually transformed its way of thinking and slogan into a more ideologically influenced motto of ‘Ethiopian Socialism’ in response to the pressure of left leaning groups including the Ethiopian student movements (Andargachew, 1993:73; Bahru, 2002:244). Gradually the Dergue moved to becoming a communist-oriented in terms of its ideological orientation. Marxist- Leninist writings began to officially appear at the book stores25_{which were prohibited until then.}

Pictures of Marx, Engels and Lenin were being erected at the main squares of the major cities of the country.

In parallel with the political development mentioned above, a new economic policy for the country was adopted in February, 1975 and an extract from the Economic Policy reads as follows:

(…) the major and immediate economic goal of Ethiopian Socialism cannot be but the elimination of poverty through the development of productive forces and the consequent expansion of production, and the prevention of exploitation of the Ethiopian people. This can be achieved only when the government as the representative of the people, and in the interest of the mass of

Ethiopian workers and peasants, directly owns and controls the natural resources and key industrial, commercial and financial sectors of the economy’(GOE, 1975:3).

Accordingly, the military government adopted practical measures of ‘nationalisation’ of private property. Major privately owned means of production and distribution were nationalised in January and February 1975. In March of the same year, it was proclaimed that rural land was placed under state ownership to be followed by the nationalisation of privately owned urban land and extra26 _{houses in July 1975 (Clapham, 1987:152). This takeover of the private property and}

means of productions by the government made the latter the major employer, not only in the sphere of public services but also on the economic front more generally.27 _{Thus, the State}

transformed itself from an organ of regulatory power into an economic entity engaged in owning and managing business enterprises while retaining its regulatory power intact.

As a reflection of this political and economic transformation, a new labour law was issued in 1975 (Labour Proclamation No. 64/1975). The political rhetoric, at the time, was that the employee is at the same time the owner of the nationalised enterprises. As a result, the labour proclamation mainly addressed the issue of employment security by stipulating strict labour market provisions on hiring and firing procedures. First, it required ‘every enterprise to report all job-vacancies to an Employment Office as soon as they occur’ and it was from the registered job-seekers that the enterprise was allowed to hire (Proc. No. 64/1975; Arts. 3 & 4). At the level of firing, it laid down the principle stating that ‘any contract of employment shall be deemed to have been concluded for an indefinite period’ (Proc. No. 64/1975, Art. 8(2)). Based on this principle, even if the contract of employment was concluded for a definite period, it was considered to have been concluded for an indefinite period, if the job was of a continuous nature. Consequently, it was the nature of the job rather than the terms of the contract of employment that determined the duration of employment. Second, the law exhaustively enumerated what were considered to be lawful grounds for termination of employment and any termination outside of the listing was held to be unlawful and hence entitled the dismissed employee to reinstatement with back pay (ibid, Art. 14(2)).

26_{Urban house owners were allowed to choose only one residence house to own and the remaining houses of the}

owner, if any, were to be nationalised being considered as ‘extra-houses’.

27_{A survey undertaken in 1983 by the Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (MOLSA) that covered enterprises}

employing ten or more persons put the public sector employment at 516,867(out of a total 708, 565 employees in the formal sector which is 73% of employment in the formal sector (IMF, 1999a:39)

This marked a distinct break from the Civil Code legal regime. There, it will be recalled, whether there was ‘good cause’ for termination was a matter to be determined by the employer except that the decision of the employer was subject to revision by a court if the case was brought to the court’s attention by the dismissed employee. Even if the court held that there was no good cause for termination, the employer was never compelled to reinstate the employee. Payment of compensation to the maximum of three months wages28_{of the employee was the sole remedy for}

terminations without ‘good cause’. However, the labour law of the military rule legislatively determined and exhaustively spelt out the lawful grounds for termination. Thus, the employer or the court had little or no room for case-by-case determination. In cases where the dismissal was found to be unlawful, the sole remedy (unless the employee did not want to be reinstated) was awarding of reinstatement to the employee even against the objection of the employer for unwanted service. In fact, the reinstatement was to be accompanied by back pay as the contract was deemed not to have been terminated.

Incurring the cost of back pay without the enterprise obtaining service from the reinstated employee had serious cost implications for the enterprises.29 _{The cost of firing was high and}

employers had no power to dismiss employees on disciplinary grounds unless prescribed by a collective agreement in which case the trade union would have to agree with the measure (Proc. No.64/1975; Art. 14 (1) (g)). Consequently, during the military rule, the employment relationship became a relationship far more ‘intimate’ than a legally regulated contractual relation, thereby providing higher employment security to the employees. It is interesting to note, however, that as the major employer at those times was the public sector the government incurred the cost of this rigid labour market arrangement.

28_{Compensatory remedy for termination ‘without good cause’, on the basis of the English version of the Civil Code}

was a ceiling ofsix monthwages of the employee. However, the Amharic version of the same Code stated that the amount of compensation for unjustified termination was a maximum of three months wage of the employee. Although, there was no explanation why and how such a discrepancy occurred, in case of inconsistency between the two versions, the accepted rule of interpretation in Ethiopia has been the Amharic version prevails over the English one. After all, the legislature discussed, voted and adopted the Amharic version and the English version is a mere translation.

29 _{Due to the high expense the State-owned enterprises incurred because of back pay awards, the Government}

through the then Prime Minster wrote a letter to the labour tribunals of the time ‘calling their due attention’to take the necessary carewhen deciding to award back pay . The letter reminded them that’ wage is meant a payment to be given for a service rendered’ implying that one should not be entitled for pay without rendering service. It appeared that the military government realized the cost implication of the rigid provision of the law in this respect. All the same, it did not want to change the law as it would be tantamount to betrayal to the ‘working class’ to whom it claimed to have represented. Thus what it could not do by itself it liked to see done by the labour tribunals.

With regards to the social entitlements, the paid annual leave, maternity leave and sick leave, which had been introduced by the Civil Code of 1960, were maintained by the new proclamation in a prolonged duration and with higher pay benefits.30_{The fact that the military regime adopted}

the communist-oriented path of economic development seemed to have shaped the content of its labour proclamation towards apparently pro-labour prescriptions. In fact, the preamble of the labour proclamation of the military regime provided that ‘…the worker is the source and foundation of all production and as such his rights to work free from exploitation and the proper protection of his safety and health must be assured in order to improve his standard of living’ (Paragraph-2).