Designing Continuum to Enrich Ethiopian Educational Discourse and Debate Culture

          Ghelawdewos Araia                    September 7, 2004

                The truth that was lost in the morning comes home in the evening

          The wise aim at boundaries beyond the present; by their struggle they transcend

          the circle of their beginning

This article aims at expanding the scope and horizon of debate culture in the context of Ethiopian educational development. It will address the cultural dimension of deductive reasoning and its subsequent adoption by the educational institutions in Ethiopia. It is imperative, if not urgent, to implement a sane and civil debate culture for the sake of a more productive and constructive educational system. It is incumbent upon responsible Ethiopian intellectuals and scholars, to see to it that debate in educational discourse is a precondition to meaningful societal transformation.

As per the African proverbs cited above, the wise and responsible intellectuals will aim beyond the present and grapple with the possible (and hopefully positive) transformation that will take place in order to improve the welfare of the Ethiopian people. These are the visionaries who will not be distracted by trivial issues and ego trips that demand constant massaging. They have transcended the circle of their beginning and wish to translate a major agenda of development that will ultimately benefit their people. On the other hand, there are some Ethiopian intellectuals who have betrayed their potential and forgotten the noble national stake, and instead have engaged themselves in degenerated personal attacks and scatology with profane language that have become part of mirth-making and cyber polemical exchanges. The latter are imbued with emotional (and not rational) responses bounded only by the polemicist’s psychological rapture.

We can circumvent negative polemics by sober reflection and by designing a continuum to enrich the debate culture in Ethiopia, and this is the main thrust of this paper.

Four years ago, I wrote “Strategies for A Democratic Culture” in the East African Forum and discussed “traditional African democracies where different ideas were tolerated and where criticism was adopted as the governing principle and vehicle toward enhancing a stable society with a common goal constructed on essentially opposing ideas.” Moreover, I analyzed the ‘principle of negotiation,’ the ‘cooperation game,’ the ‘four relationship patterns,’ and the ‘five strategies toward realizing a democratic culture.’

The ‘principle of negotiation’ entails group discussion and collective plan based on mutual respect and benefit. The group shares and shoulders responsibilities in a common agenda, and in the event of a problem a common discussion platform is employed to overcome any real or perceived encounter. In the ‘cooperation game,’ the ultimate objective is to benefit equally, to win concurrently even after some exchange of   propaganda and/or satire.

The ‘four relationship patterns’ (after Butler and Hope) are comparative lose-win strategies as shown below:

1.      There is plenty for all: everyone in a relationship have something to gain

2.      I win, you lose: this is not only intrinsically unfair; it is also not to your long-term advantage. Either the people who lose will draw away from you, or the ones who remain close are the ones who complement you by showing you a third pattern.

3.      You win, I lose: this attitude builds up resentment and anger, and is therefore satisfactory to neither party: “If you act like a doormat, don’t be surprised if people walk on you.”

4.      Lose: Lose: this is a totally destructive pattern, and not likely to result in lasting relationships.

The message of the four patterns is pretty much clear. If we can’t accommodate one another in the ‘a’ pattern, we can easily encounter the ‘d’ pattern. Our best bet would be to respect everyone’s ideas, look for a common ground, broaden the basis of discussion, and advocate that we are indeed, at least potentially, capacious.

And the Five Strategies Toward Realizing a Democratic Culture include the following:

1.      Clarify: Be sure to clarify what the other person means and what you mean. Do not make a hasty judgment, conclusion and interpretation. Ask for clarification first.

2.      Build on what the other person says: Instead of reaching to what you do not like about it and instantly saying “no”, look for what you can accept and start with a “yes”. This takes you out of conflict and straight into discussion.

3.      Cut out the blame: think of there being different point of view than one wrong and one right one. Possibilities are infinite! Instead of thinking in terms of ‘fault’, think in terms of shared responsibility. Avoid accusations, insults or derogatory name-calling like “you are so arrogant,” “you are a pig head,” “you are immature and childish” etc. you may opt for ‘no compromise’ but by doing so you have absolved the other person from his/her fault.

4.      Don’t escalate the fight: whatever disagreements there are, try to resolve them peacefully; if you escalate, you may end up in deadlock or stalemate and possibly sink into the lose-lose quagmire.

5.      Avoid scapegoat [ing]: if you fail to negotiate, have the courage to admit that you have shortcomings. You are human after all, and therefore don’t ever project your faults and failures unto others.

It is based on the above patterns and strategies that we must now expound our discussion forum, but in order to enjoy a sane debate culture, the Ethiopian educational system in general and higher institutions of learning in particular must not be only facilitators of learning but they should also be creators of positive climate in school settings. For instance, the Ethiopian curriculum and instruction, as part of its response to a diverse Ethiopian society must incorporate a climate of acceptance of students, eliminate gender bias, and implement a holistic multicultural education. This implies that the curriculum will be designed in such a way to include different cultural perspectives and contributions, and here is sown the culture of civilized debate and tolerance. Teachers, of course, can use a variety of instructional techniques such as individualized, cooperative, and inter-group relations to translate the curriculum into action. Once our schools transcend the narrow, negative, polemical subculture, and embrace the attributes of constructive debate, it is guaranteed that a whole new generation of Ethiopian virtuosos will take the lead in the construction of yet more robust and rich culture: A milestone and significant threshold in Ethiopian educational and literary development.

The culture of tolerance and positive exchange of ideas, therefore, begins in our schools and we must not lose sight of the fact that our educational system in general and our teachers in particular are the custodians (indeed repositories) of civil culture where positive relationships with students are consciously cultivated. Our teachers at elementary and secondary levels and our professors at colleges and universities are the constructors of knowledge and transformers of culture. For this important role to be translated into action, teachers can follow one educator by the name Thomas Gordon who suggested the following themes:

1.      Openness or Transparency, so each is able to risk directness and honesty with the other;

2.      Caring, when each knows that he is valued by the other;

3.      Interdependence (as opposed to dependence) of one on the other

4.      Separateness, to allow each to grow and to develop his uniqueness, creativity, and individuality;

5.      Mutual Needs Meeting, so that neither needs are met at the expense of the other’s needs.

The five themes suggested above, if implemented properly, will definitely create a fertile ground for a more tolerant, responsive, and just social and political systems. But the underlying trajectories are complex and our schools and teachers need to first critically examine the complexity of issues surrounding education and culture. This complexity, in part, is engendered by the long and discrete feudal culture of secretive and introspective general characteristics of the Ethiopian society, and it is for this apparent reason that we see the urgency of openness and transparency in the Ethiopian society. It is also for this reason that we need to heavily invest in education and undertake a massive cultural revolution in the form of education. It goes without saying that integrity, honesty, mutual respect, and patriotism are some of the rich values embedded in the Ethiopian culture, that are but constantly threatened by the recent development of materialist self-centered subculture. 

In order for Ethiopian teachers to better understand their society and the vicissitudes of their immediate environment and help generate an appreciation of the nexus between education and the larger society, they need to consider the following six philosophical foundations of education:

1.      Perennialism: is geared toward teaching students permanent knowledge and values whereby teachers dispense knowledge and students simply internalize. It is teacher-centered and traditional subjects such as classics, history, science, and art are part of the core curriculum in perennialism.

2.      Progressivism: education is considered as part of life and learning is based on the interest of the student, and the latter is expected to actively participate in the learning process. Unlike the perennialist teacher, the progressive teacher serves as facilitator. Progressivism is experience-centered and was first propounded by John Dewey.

3.      Constructionist: is based on the philosophy of Dewey, Piaget, and Vygotsky. Central to the Constructionist philosophy is the actual and practical engagement of students in learning. The Constructionist teacher recognizes that study group engaged in carefully chosen projects is the major actor and locomotive. The curriculum is fashioned by project learning and/or problem solving drills.

4.      Essentialism: Unlike perennialism, there is no permanency for either knowledge or values in the essentialist philosophy. The essentialist curriculum is dynamic and ready to change whenever change takes place in the larger society. Like the perennialist, the essentialist respects traditional academic subjects, but the teacher in the latter is responsible for motivating students.

5.      Existentialism: views human beings as individual persons with freedom and responsibility rather than collective with universal characteristics. ‘Choice’ is central to existentialism and accordingly if students are going to be productive learners, they must be allowed to make choices in their educational careers and also have a say in the design of the curriculum. Existentialism is about the ‘individual person’ and quite naturally individualized educational experiments (as opposed to the Constructivist) are promoted.

6.      Social Reconstructionism: believes that society must make significant changes to overcome social injustice and other societal ills. Schools play a major catalytic role in social transformation; teachers are considered as exemplar of social change, and students as effective change agents. Central to social Reconstructionism are problem solving, the humanist tradition, social justice, and equity. The social reconstructionist teacher is cognizant of the significance of democratic values and has a mission to effectively utilize the classroom arena for promoting democratic ideals and, in turn, a culture of tolerance and civil debate.

Of all the above philosophical foundations of education, the one that comes close to my own belief and principles is social reconstructionism. However, I feel strongly that we must present all philosophies to our students so that they can explore, critically examine, elucidate the respective philosophies and come up with their own perspective. If we can’t present such a continuum, we can hardly exhibit integrity and objectivity in the teaching profession.

Having discussed the various models and teaching strategies, we can now examine the fundamentals of arguments and causal relationships in an effort to enrich the Ethiopian educational discourse and debate culture. Our colleague in the City University of New York, John Chaffee, author of Critical Thinking, Thoughtful Writing, says, “Arguing effectively is essential to academic and professional success.” It is in the latter spirit that I like to expound and elucidate the culture of debate. Although ‘argument’ has a negative connotation as opposed to ‘reasoning’, we shall use it in the latter context throughout the text.

Traditional Africa is well known for its argumentative village assemblies. The ubiquitous council of elders meetings under the shade of a tree symbolize African democracy and governance by consent. These elders had “talked and argued till they agree.” There were also (and still are) non-verbal action-oriented arguments or contests as demonstrated in the Fanorona (board game) of Madagascar or Gebeta  (board game) of Ethiopia, where two opponents fight to win but not to destroy each other, and interestingly the audience (this are silent spectators for the most part) that surround them knows that the contest is based on friendship and deference.

Another form of argument, which takes a legal dimension but where mutual listening is conducted was the ancient Ethiopian/Aksumite tradition led by the Ba’ale Hig, a functionary who facilitates the Quame Hig (fixed legislation) in order to ensure that every citizen is entitled to be heard in the event of dispute, transgression, or crime. The moot courts in traditional Ethiopia that have survived to this day are legacy of the Quame Hig   and are run by council of elders known as Shimagle.

Ancient Greeks were also famous for their rhetoric (persuasion) or argument, and indeed one of the books of Aristotle is entitled Rhetoric. Following Aristotle and the rhetoric Greek tradition, some important concepts like ethos (the character of the person engaged in debate), pathos (the effect of rhetoric on the target audience), and logos (the logic and substance or content of the debate/argument) were developed. Therefore, argument (the subject-matter) in any form must entail the trio of ethos, pathos, and logos with the sole purpose of understanding rather than attacking the opponent. A similar rhetoric had been developed at the University of Sankore in Songhay where the schools offered diction, prosody, and elocution, the first two for choice of words and versification and the last one for public speech and debate. In either the Greek or African tradition, it was customary for rhetoricians to acknowledge and respect other points of view and present their thesis by delineating differences, but without ever resorting to personal attack.

In either the Greek or African tradition, the people engaged in debate strategize to convince each other by amplifying their differences and yet they respectively develop reasons and substantiated concluding remarks for the mere purpose of persuading one another. This is what we call dialogue, and it is healthy. Civil debate or dialogue is a carefully crafted discussion forum with the sole purpose of exchanging ideas and if necessary nullifying the line of arguments of the opponent, but without resorting to denigrating other perspectives.

“Where you construct arguments,” says Chaffee, “you are constructing views of the world by means of your ability to infer.” Arguments, thus, go beyond exchange of ideas to clarifying issues, developing mutual understanding, and ultimately creating consensus. The African village assemblies, mentioned above, were inherently structured to bring about consensus among members of their respective communities.

In an academic setting, and more specifically in a formal logic class, valid and invalid arguments are systematically evaluated. Now, the more troublesome notion is ‘Truth’. Reasons can make sense and arguments could be valid, but they may not be necessarily true. If our inferences follow our premise in a deductive reasoning, we call them valid. On the other hand, if the conclusion does not follow the premise or the reasons offered, it is invalid. Put otherwise, true reasons with valid structure is considered sound, and false reasons with valid structure is simply unsound. The ultimate objective of this deductive (from general to specific) and inductive (from specific to general) reasoning is to help students communicate clearly and extrapolate critically while their teachers model logical thinking.

Unfortunately, the real world is not only about sound arguments, civil debate, and civilized behavior. It is also inundated with fallacies and hasty generalization, and in the most degenerated form of “reasoning,” debate is ridden with character assassinations. Fallacies are false reasoning (pseudo-reasoning), but they sometimes can give the semblance of sound argument and/or logical reasoning when they appeal to emotions and preconceived ideas. Fallacies, especially if they are political in nature, appeal to authority, fear, ignorance, or resort to personal attacks.

Contrary to true and valid arguments, false arguments with appeal to personal attack (also known as ad hominem, literally ‘to the man’ rather than ‘to the issue’) contaminate and poison an otherwise enriched debate or an ongoing educational discourse. It is in light of the latter digression that Ethiopian scholars must seek the positive aspects of arguments and altogether avoid false or pseudo-reasoning. The word ‘avoid’ is problematic if we see it in the context of debate, for the latter must uphold the principle of inclusiveness where contrary ideas are also entertained.  We are using the word ‘avoid’ only to discourage character assassination and personal attack as methodology, and not to limit the exposure of the audience to interactive relationships. After all, when we develop a continuum, although we aim for a better and enriched debate culture, we have also an obligation to present the negative dimension of arguments so that we can stimulate our students intellectually and enable them to critically examine them.

One other important mechanism that our schools must use to examine the nature of debate on socio-economic and political issues, for instance, is  ‘causality’. However, determining causal relationships is a complicated matter itself. A phenomenon can have more than one cause and the causes could be variegated. In this encounter, a multivariate analysis is sought not only to determine the causal relationships or chain reaction of events, but also to delineate the reciprocal influences that are plugged in interactive causes. By doing this, we can come close to exploring the immediate and remote causes in a given phenomena. For example, one can argue that drought is the immediate cause for the Ethiopian famine while underdevelopment is its remote cause. But as stated above, since causality implies many variables, the example for immediate cause that we have given here could change depending on the nature and magnitude of the famine. Other factors, for instance, could be locusts, hail, crop disease, war etc. Whatever the cause for the Ethiopian famine, it could be debated by agronomists, ecologists, soil scientists, rural development experts from Alemaya and Mekelle Universities, for instance.

By the same token, the Political Science and International Relations Department of Addis Ababa University could debate contemporary issues pertaining to the post-conflict resolution and the Ethiopian-Eritrean federation (a hypothetical scenario) or the confederation of the Horn of Africa states (another hypothetical scenario). They can debate on the current Ethiopian federal structure based on ethnicity and the retention or revision of Article 39 of the Constitution (real scenario).

History students at all major universities such as Addis Ababa, Alemaya, Bahir Dar, Debub, Jimma, and Mekelle can debate  ‘Emperor Menelik and the modernization of Ethiopia.’ For the sake of discussion, I will quote my own work (ETHIOPIA: The Political Economy of Transition, 1995) that I think is pertinent to this topic:

“Most of the south was conquered after long and bloody wars. The battle of Imbabo in Wollega in 1882, the battle of Chelenko (Harar) in 1887 and the extensive wars in Borena, Kambata and Wolaita in 1893-94 are but few examples. ‘Of all the campaigns which Menelik conducted before he became emperor in 1889 perhaps the most sustained and the most bloody were those against the Arussi Galla. It took six different campaigns conducted between January 1882 and January 1887 to conquer that vast region’. As early as 1882, Menelik had begun subduing the Guraghes and in the same year he had his eyes on the kingdoms of Kaffa and Jimma and other small states within the Gojeb-Didessa-Ghibe westerly valleys. In 1885, he had plans to march against the Emir of Harar, but on second thought he wanted to settle matters with the mighty Arsis first. In fact, when the Oromo of Arsis were subdued in 1887, Menelik used Arsi as his buffer zone to conquer Harar in the same year. By the same token, Harar was used as a stepping-stone for the subjugation of the Somali of Ogaden in 1891. Two years later, the peoples of Borena, Kambata, Wolaita and Sidama were incorporated and in 1894, the Kingdom of Janjero fell under Menelik. Of all the kingdoms of the south, the kingdom of Kaffa was not subdued until after the battle of Adwa in 1896.” (p. 20) 

What I wrote in my book about Menelik’s military expedition in the southern part of Ethiopia is a historical fact, but it could be debated whether it is justified or not vis-à-vis the partition of Africa by European powers; or whether this part of Ethiopian history (conquest and expansion) is unique or is universal (all modern nations, in one form or another, evolved along similar lines like that of Ethiopia); or whether we should look more into the future and not dwell unto the past or re-examine our past experience and seek Ethiopian style affirmative action to redress oppressed nationalities of Ethiopia.

Panelists in the debate can agree or disagree with my contention. That is perfectly all right. What is very important here, and as per the central theme of this paper, is that Menelik like any other modern Ethiopian leader has merit and demerit and could be criticized, but he should not be subjected to character assassination. One prominent Ethiopian historian who supports my thesis on the conquest of the Ethiopian south is Bahru Zewde and here is what he said:

“I doubt if there is anyone who would deny the existence of national oppression in the past. If there is, it must be someone who is not conversant with the history of the country. In particular, the southern peoples were subjected to extensive and odious oppression. Subjected to the administrative fiat of the north, their language and culture were denigrated. Many lost their lands and quite a few were sold into slavery. The Ethiopian student movement played a commendable role in exposing this state of affair and fighting for its termination.” (Ethiopian Economic Association, Vision 2020 Ethiopia, p. 9).

Since we have an obligation to render fair and square and extend justice, not just to Menelik but also to anyone, it is important to show what I wrote about the Emperor on his positive contributions:

“Menelik was a fascinating and brilliant emperor who was endowed with an extraordinary insight to traditional wisdom of politics. He was ready to handle internal and external political matters properly…another more significant contribution is Menelik’s realization of the importance of modern infrastructure, education and health services in order to run his empire. Between 1897 and 1908, the telephone, telegraph, the Menelik modern hospital (first run by the Russian Red Cross), the Menelik modern school, electric lights, the Bank of Abyssinia (under the auspices of the Egyptian administration) were introduced. For a better and efficient communication, roads were constructed and a Franco-Ethiopian railroad, though far from completion in Menelik’s lifetime, began its operation in 1894. The Arada Posta had also began and Ethiopia became a member of the Universal Postal Union in the same year.” (Pages 24-26).

Ethiopian historians also can debate what ancient historians in the remote past said about Ethiopians. The following quotation could be less controversial but still need to be examined in light of its validity, credibility and truth:

“By reason of their piety, the Ethiopians manifestly enjoy the favor of the gods, and although many and powerful rulers have made war upon them, not one of these have succeeded in his undertaking.” Diodoros Sisulus

Ethiopian economists, as well, can debate whether the current policy of ‘agriculture-led industrial development’ is suitable for Ethiopian overall economic overhaul or whether the policy can really guarantee sustainable development vis-à-vis globalization.

In light of the swift globalization that we are witnessing at present, and in recognition that Ethiopia, like other developing countries, is very much affected by global economic trends and arrangements, we may want to debate rival theoretical interpretations of world politics by focusing on some paradigms such as liberalism and/or realism. Liberalism is a paradigm predicated on the assumption that reason and universal ethics can overcome international anarchy and foster good relations and the spirit of cooperativeness among states. Realism (also known as realpolitik) views world politics as static anarchy where states compete for their national interest.

One example of liberal/realist debate that we like to adapt for our present discussion comes from David A. Baldwin (ed), Neorealism and Neoliberalism: The Contemporary Debate, Columbia University Press, New York, 1993

. The Nature and Consequences of Anarchy. Although no one denies that the international system is anarchical in some sense, there is disagreement as to what this means and why it matters…

. International Cooperation. Although both sides agree that international cooperation is possible, they differ as to the ease and likelihood of its occurrence…

. Relative versus Absolute Gains. Although it would be misleading to characterize one side as concerned with relative gains and the other as concerned only with absolute gains, neoliberals have stressed the absolute gains from international cooperation, while neorealists have emphasized relative gains.

. Priority of State Goals. Neoliberals and neorealists agree that both national security and economic welfare are important, but they differ in relative emphasis on these goals, with neoliberals stressing the latter and neorealists the former.

. Intentions versus Capabilities. Contemporary neorealists emphasize capabilities more than intentions, whereas neoliberals emphasize intentions, interests, and information [instead of] the distribution of capabilities.

. Institutions and Regimes. Both neorealists and neoliberals recognize the multitude of international regimes and institutions that have emerged since 1945. They differ, however, with respect to the significance of such arrangements…     

Once we systematically infuse the debate culture (as shown in the above point & counter-point), with all its attendant models and techniques, into the corpus of the curriculum, we will be able to anticipate the truth that we have lost at dawn coming home at dusk, and once we rediscover the truth, we can claim with certainty that we have indeed transcended the circle of our beginning and paved a bright future for Ethiopia.                                  

Copyright © Institute of Development and Education for Africa (IDEA), Inc. 2004