Humanizing the Ethiopian Political Culture

Ghelawdewos Araia October 14, 2005

In this article, an attempt will be made to rationally explicate the trends in contemporary Ethiopian politics and suggest a viable solution to the political deadlock between the ruling and the opposition forces. As per the tradition of political science (not conventional politics), to the extent possible, I will remain neutral in order to fairly render justice to the contending forces in the Ethiopian political arena. The leading Princeton political scientist, Sheldon S. Wolin, in his celebrated book Politics and Vision: Continuity and Innovation in Western Political Thought underscores the creative vision of political thinkers who, in one form or another, continued political analyses characterized by neutral observation of objective reality. The advantages of neutral observation (prerequisite to a scholarly discourse) are tremendous, and they include, among other things, sober reflection of phenomena, unbiased collection of data, the power of listening to all without prejudice to none, and the objective analysis and presentation of facts as they unfold, i.e. documenting history as is!

Ultimately, neutral observation of politics will have a humanizing and moralizing effect even on the most demonic political figures. Frank Furedi, in his book The Politics of Fear: Beyond Left and Right discusses “a new conception of politics with an adequate conception of humanity – one that “remoralises” politics by taking humans seriously, recognizes the centrality of morality and discussion of right and wrong, and utilizes our imaginations.” Furedi’s “centrality of morality” thesis that used to be a dynamic vehicle in the Ethiopian ethos is now practically eroded and we witness intolerance and political bifurcation among main political actors in Ethiopia. However, the remoralising of politics is not altogether new as Furedi claims. In fact, long ago, both Sigmund Freud and Emile Durkheim had already detected ‘the society within us’ (the psyche of our social values), however suppressed, has the potential to regenerate and change ugly politics to goodness.

As M. N. Roy aptly puts it “small groups of good and rational men will be the concrete beginning for the creation of good and rational human society, which is the object of all humanist politics. Such a beginning is bound to spread, and the process will accelerate as its results become known.” The aim of ‘a few good men’ in politics is to help the larger community achieve a relatively better, peaceful, stable, and prosperous society and not aspire for a perfect and ideal one. After all, as Bryan D. Jones argues, our rationality is bounded and our adaptability limited. Moreover, he contends, “ that we should begin with rationality as a standard and then study the uniquely human ways in which we deviate from it.”

Once human beings deviate from their humane qualities, it is highly probable that they would trample over the society within us, exacerbates intolerance, and could even be overtaken by their bestial (animal instinct) behavior. This, of course, would result in the most dangerous and destructive action as witnessed in major wars and carnage throughout history, and it is this kind of propensity that we want to avoid and attempt to ward it off via humanist rational tradition.
In many of my writings, though I was at times critical of the status quo and for the most part critical of the overarching political climate in Ethiopia, I have also tried several times to discuss the significance of peaceful resolution to conflicts, ironing out differences among opposing forces, and dialogue and compromises in politics and discussion forums etc.

One of my works, Designing Continuum to Enrich Ethiopian Educational Discourse and Debate Culture, conveys the main message of this article. In anticipation of the present crisis, I have then pointed out the following:

“…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.” This is the essence of humanist rational politics and I am hoping, that this time Ethiopians will seriously engage in prioritizing the national agenda as opposed to political bickering and squabble. 

Sometimes, though, our attempt to humanize politics could be frustrated by a determined, unwilling, and tragically unyielding group. But we should not give up easily; we should continue to regenerate the society within us and create a climate that could accommodate divergent views and foster a relatively sane society. Again, our wish (subjective) and the concrete reality (objective) could be at odds often times. In relation to this, and more specifically in relation to power politics, Eliott P. Skinner, the Columbian anthropologist, makes the following observation:

"…Both the US and many African leaders are creating the basis of “disemia”. This is a condition among local power seekers who, to please hegemonies, may either disguise those aspects of social life that conflict with the hopes of tutelary powers, or cynically manipulate local conditions to gain or remain in power.” 

Cynical manipulation and other negative energies with our political system could be overcome, however gradual, overtime if we employ the suggestion I have made in Modernism, Post-Modernism and Afrocentrism: Meanings for Ethiopia. In that article I suggested that Ethiopians “amalgamate constructive post-modernism with Afrocentrism and utilize our new paradigm to promote the transformation of the Ethiopian society for the better.” The precondition for a post-modernist humanist politics is the adoption of African values of togetherness embedded in inextricable interdependence and connectedness. This, in turn, is a manifestation of shared values; central to the philosophy of “I am because we are, and since we are therefore I am” that guarantees inclusiveness. And in order to translate the humanist inclusive politics, the Ethiopian political groups (both ruling and opposition), should first liberate themselves from the old Marxian notion of essential contradiction and move on toward unity. ‘Essential contradiction,’ contrary to the oneness of humanity and the unity of the whole (society), does not confirm to the peaceful resolution of differences among political groups. 

Thus, our task would be to humanize the political culture (short-term) and invest heavily on the education of our citizenry (long-term). Eventually the humanized political status quo will begin to listen to what Zara Yacob said a long time ago: “Citizens who are morally/rationally formed need not be silenced and intimidated by an authoritarian or manipulative sovereign…and men should be accountable for their actions.” This Zara Yacob humanist rational philosophy that is penetratingly relevant to ‘citizen rights’ advocacy was discussed in my article Modernism…mentioned above. On top of the Zara Yacob thesis, however, the Ethiopian political landscape must observe the rule of law that in turn guarantees justice and democracy. To help us further understand what the rule of law entails, we may want to cite what Pat Duffy Hutcheon discussed a decade ago in his article entitled Beyond Right and Left: A Humanist Approach to Politics: 

“The rule of law ensures that

(1) laws cannot be changed arbitrarily by a powerful leader; 

(2) laws are universally communicated and applied; 

(3) contractual obligations among citizens and between state and citizenry are upheld; and 

(4) social order and security of life and property are maintained.” If these four rules are enforced and the supremacy of the constitution is guaranteed, the transgression of some laws including the lifting of the “immunity clause” will not take place. After all, we are expecting to have a relatively civil and sane political system, and both the ruling and opposition forces will equally contribute to the making of a new humanized Ethiopian society. 

Given the current crisis, humanist politics in the Ethiopian context could look very remote, but I don’t think we could come up with any other alternative to iron out political differences peacefully. I am of the opinion that Ethiopians should consider the following Ten-Point Agenda and see to it if they are workable:

• 
  
  1) Both the government and the opposition must conduct rule of law for the sake of peace and stability.
  2) The government of Meles Zenawi should reinstate the Immunity Clause and release the detainee of the opposition and accept the demands of the latter.
  3) The opposition, in light of humanist/rational reality, must assume their seats in parliament.
  4) Both the opposition and the government should negotiate on the controversy of “agenda formulation via majority rule”; in light of humanist politics, the ruling party must yield and lift the “majority” conundrum so that there could be a functioning parliament. 
  5) Both should negotiate on the formation of independent electoral commission, independent judiciary, and access to media by all citizens.
  6) Both should debate the content of the Constitution, including Article 39 and other controversial articles.
  7) Both should debate in the Parliament, or in public arenas such as university forums, strategies for development for Ethiopia including economic policies such as land reform, privatization, the Millennium Development Goals etc. vis-à-vis globalization
  8) Both should debate Ethiopian foreign policy parameters including relations with neighboring states, the Boundary Commission decision, and Ethiopia’s access to the sea.
  9) Both must understand fully that they represent (at least theoretically) entire people and a nation; they could not transgress the will of the people, nor operate outside the constitution.
  10) Both must agree that Ethiopia’s national interest, sovereignty and territorial integrity are non-negotiable.