ABSTRACT
This chapter is not as thematically uniform as the previous or the next ones. It has been titled “Some Aspects of Land and Agrarian Development in Arssi during the Imperial Era 1941–1974.” It analyzes insightfully the impact of land policy at length. It assesses different issues that arose from the land tenure policy: tenancy and its hardships, taxation, fund raising and lawsuits related with land and finally the impact of all these on the political economy of land and agrarian development and some attempts at reforms and the sequels. Sources used are mainly literature, oral and archives gathered in rural and urban areas of Arssi and elsewhere in Ethiopia. Methodologically, necessary interpretation and cross and counter-checking have been done. One can say that this is a mini-book within a book. The chapter finds out that of all these aspects, it was not taxation or contribution which affected the peasants most. Rather, it was the land litigation, bribes and mismanagement of the administration system. It was, above all else, the absence of a viable land policy that inhibited growth and development of the economy in general, not to mention the agricultural sector. The imperial government when asked to do something rendered merely lip service than action. Small-scale agriculture was ignored and things were done without a plan. When, through foreign initiative, plans were set, the first was given to infrastructure, the second manufacturing and the third (TFYDP) agriculture. But it was commercial agriculture that was given priority. For peasant agriculture, citing its backwardness, a package programme was adopted in the former Cilaaloo awraja (sub-province of Assi region). CADU was, thus, established out of this sense of selective agricultural development as the first and largest agent of change in the country from where changes would spring and spread to the rest of the country. But the competition between commercial and peasant agriculture was not a healthy one. The former got attention. Hence, there was no agrarian and agricultural development. Plans themselves were foreign based. Plough agriculture which was started in the north in ca. 5th century BC dominated till the revolution and even up to now. MoA, which was founded in 1907, restricted its activities to rewarding commercial crop farmers since 1951 instead of encouraging peasant agriculture that engaged the broad masses. The rich did not even pay taxes, not to mention contributions. The peasantry alone, including the tenants, were made to pay taxes, tribute and contributions. Those who had capacity used their power not to pay tax and contribution but to evade it or not to bear any obligation. Regional variation also continued up to 1967. The north did not pay as large as the south in general. Institutions like the church also did not pay tax at all for so long. Thus, politics was nurtured at the expense of government income and even the expected development. Under this situation it would be naivety to expect development or growth. It was only nature that favoued most of the country. But that itself waned in 1958 and 1973/74 when famine overtook Wallo and parts of Tegray. This itself was concealed and heard only from foreign journalists. All these accumulated over time and finally pushed the regime out of power, for which it had cared for so long at any expense.
