Points of Clarification for the Sake of Educational Discourse
Ghelawdewos Araia
October 3, 2007

This essay intends to clarify points with respect to my article ‘Beyond the Millennium, Beyond Illusion and Cynicism, and the Challenges of Development’ (www.africanidea.org/beyond_millennium.html). A response to my article entitled “Is There Anybody with Better Advice for the New Millennium” by Ato Desta Berhe and published by Aigaforum (www.aigaforum.com/better_advice.htm) is the focus of the present essay.

First, I like to thank Ato Desta for his critique and congratulate him for his initiative. Not many Ethiopians are taking such an initiative and as a result, as I have pointed out in some of my previous articles, we are unable to enrich our educational discourse. In this spirit, therefore, I like to engage readers to critically examine the points of clarification that I will extrapolate in this article. Moreover, so that we can be able to evolve a positive attitude, rather than a negatively charged mindset, I will first quote a statement from ‘The Idiom in African Art’:

“Jean Jaures once expressed poetically a wish which promises to become a reality today: that the peoples of the earth should be like a bouquet of flowers, in which each flower has its own perfume and color, and yet is essential to the effect of the whole bouquet.” (Werner Haftman, German Art of the 20th Century, New York: Museum of Modern Art, 1957).

In the micro sense, we can attribute the metaphor of the bouquet of flowers to Ethiopians and hence the collective wisdom that I have discussed in my article. It is, again, in this spirit, not in polemics, that I like to extend clarification for the writer (and to others by default) so that he could have a better grasp of the gist of my article.

The writer starts out by quoting a definition of ‘regime’ from a dictionary and tells us that “a regime is a method and system of government, especially one that has not been elected,” and from this definition he concluded, “Dr. Ghelawdewos’ article portrays that the EPRDF was not elected in a fair way to be the government of Ethiopia.” I am sorry to say, but Ato Desta got it all wrong. 

Firstly, I have employed the word ‘regime’ in its political science connotation to mean, simply, ‘administration’ or ‘type of government,’ not in the generic sense given in the dictionary. I like to advise the writer to understand terms and/or concepts contextually; otherwise illusion and paranoia will ensue. 

Secondly, I have neither explicitly stated nor implied that “the EPRDF was not elected in a fair way to be the government of Ethiopia.” It is the writer’s digression or sinister interpretation, and not mine and this reminds me of a Tigrigna proverb( Seraq Mo’baé Ba’elu Yi’le’falef, roughly translated to mean ‘he who steals a tabernacle voluntarily confesses in public’) that is quite fitting for this kind of self-incriminating statement.

The writer says that he “he is puzzled by the politically Wax and Gold (Semna Worq) words like ‘Ethiopians’.” I don’t see any puzzle there. I have clearly stated that ‘Ethiopians’ refers to the Diaspora, but because the writer misunderstood (again contextually), my reference to Ethiopians, he goes out of his way and advises that I search for Ethiopians at www.flickr.com and look for “for different Ethiopian ethnicities.” I would not mind that advice, but as a scholar I have done extensive studies on the Ethiopian people and it is documented in one of my books (Ethiopia: The Political Economy of Transition, 1995) under a chapter, “The Question of Nationalities in a Historical and Ethiopian Context.”

Incidentally, a couple of years ago, a friend alerted me to have a look at this Flickr blog and there I see my picture with a sub-title that reads ‘Dr. Ghelawdewos Araia: Woyane Intellectual.’ This trashy blog could have not been the venue for a scholarly work.

With respect to the suggestions I proposed in my article, the writer says item # 4 “appears so funny to me,” and from what appears to him he concludes that I am in a dilemma and further infers, “it is difficult to please both the EPRDF and its opponents at the same time…the truth of the matter is EPRDF is engaged in change.” Here the reasoning of the writer is quite disconnected, but we can help him out by further clarification.

To begin with, appearance could be deceptive (like a mirage in a dessert) and as a result could be perceived ‘funny’. However, there are two important points that need clarification in an effort to overcome the deceptive appearance: 

1) pleasing both the EPRDF and its opponents actually can be done and that is the essence of reconciliation. In many of my articles, I have suggested (and appealed) to the EPRDF to pardon and release the opposition who were incarcerated at Kaliti and after the release of the Kinjit leadership I suggested that the CUD reconcile its differences with the EPRDF. So, yes you can satisfy both sides and that is what Professor Ephraim Isaac did. 

2) “EPRDF is engaged in change.” There is no doubt that the EPRDF as a whole and the Meles regime in particular are engaged in change. Had it not been for his omission of what I stated with respect to change brought about by the EPRDF, the writer would have enjoyed a more balanced critique of my article. In fact, I have clearly said that the EPRDF “has made some changes with respect to infrastructure, electrification in rural areas, and the proliferation of schools and higher institutions of learning.”

But the most egregious misunderstanding is glaringly reflected when the writer asks, “who are these self-interested individuals in Meles’ statement?” and concludes, rather harshly, “I think they are all part of Dr. Ghelawdewos’ transformative agency.” I really am compelled to recognize the writer’s incoherence and juxtaposition of unrelated concepts like ‘corruption’ and ‘transformative agency’. Having said that, however, I must tell the reader and the writer that I did not use the phrase ‘self-interested individuals’; it was systematically used by Ato Meles in his work that I have reviewed. I urge the writer to read ‘Reflections on African Development: Dead Ends and New Beginnings’ in www.africanidea.org/reflections_mz.html 

By mixing up words like ‘corruption’ with concepts like ‘transformative agency’ and/or ‘developmental state,’ any reader could be easily lost in the wilderness of fantasy. Corruption is only one culprit or “social ill that we have to fight” as the writer correctly puts it. However, in my article, I have indicated that more than corruption (a symptom of a larger problem), it is the “complex global scenario, which for the most part impedes rather than promotes development.”

In the last part of his essay, the writer addresses me, rather personally, and says, “Dr. Ghelawdewos, are you asking the government to stop hiring expatriates (Indians, Nigerians etc)?” The answer, of course, is unequivocally no! We’diet Sher’tet Sher’tet! On the contrary what I said is, “some of the reforms could include the running of the educational sector by Ethiopians (as teachers and administrators) and not by Indians and Nigerians although the latter could be used whenever the Ministry of Education deems it necessary.” I believe that is crystal clear.

Finally, the writer ventures in “decoding” my statement and comes up with his own interpretation. First he quotes me: “if the Meles regime is indeed in favor of ‘educated and healthy workforce, world-class managers and professionals,’ it should openly extend its hands to all Ethiopians, especially those who are scattered all over the Diaspora.”

Then, he says ‘which means’ (his interpretation): “the Meles regime is indeed not in favor of ‘educated and healthy workforce, world-class managers and professionals,’ thus it would not openly extend its hands to all Ethiopians, especially those who are all over the Diaspora.”

He continues, “that goes without saying that: Since the Meles regime would not openly extend its hand to Dr. Ghelawdewos, he has a ‘good reason’ not to commit himself.”

This kind of interpretation, devoid of any rationale let alone methodological rigor, flies in the face of sound logical deduction, but the incoherence embedded in the writer’s phraseology, it seems to me, is partly engendered by lack of information rather than by cynicism or dishonesty. In any event, phrases such as ‘educated and healthy work force, world-class managers and professionals’ are Meles’ words that I have quoted in my review of his work.

I wish Ato Desta could have avoided some of the phrases that reflect low self-esteem. In regards to my commitment, I need not elaborate here. The majority of Ethiopians and Ethiopinists very well know that I have exhibited commitment at various levels and at different times. I have written over one hundred articles and authored books; struggled with fellow Ethiopians for a better Ethiopia; served as president of a pan-African group in New York; served as TDA secretary for North America; founded the short-lived REHAB ENATFFA; founded the Institute of Development and Education for Africa (IDEA). These commitments of mine are modest, but if sincerely embraced by other Ethiopians and coupled by their input, I think we can perform miracles in transforming Ethiopia.

When I argue that the Meles regime cannot transform Ethiopia to the level of the Tigers, it is not to belittle the Government’s initiative in development agenda as negativists would like to interpret it, but it is upon considering a number of factors including the Ethiopian relative backwardness and the global hindering forces. On top of this, I have clearly stated that this rather complex phenomenon that we have encountered at present is a manifestation of a historical development and has nothing to do with individuals and/or groups such as the EPRDF and countries generally classified as underdeveloped, developing, or Third World. Moreover, my argument on the hurdles of development pertains to Africa in general, not just Ethiopia in particular. In addition, it is for this apparent reason that I have attributed ‘reform and change’ for the EPRDF and not revolutionary change as has been the experience of the Industrial Revolution in 18th century England, the late 19th century Japan and other examples that I have furnished in my Article. 

In reference to Ethiopian intellectuals and professionals, I have not only demanded their inclusion in the larger Ethiopian fabric or in the government, but also criticized the educated Ethiopians for their lack of initiative in the making of modern and prosperous Ethiopia. For instance, I have repeatedly argued that the elimination of famine should not be left out to the Ethiopian authorities only and emphasized that, Ethiopian intellectuals and professionals must share the burden. 

I have always strongly felt that the essence of any major problem such as famine or underdevelopment is to develop a unified synthesis. Interestingly, this call of mine upon Ethiopians to extend their hands to their country has been positively perceived by a lager audience. One perceptive, old-timer, and brilliant scholar by the name Donald Levine actually quoted my concern that I have reiterated here, in an Ethiopian discussion forum.

In the Article under discussion, the last line states, “Ethiopia may very well be the giant of Africa one day! Let the next generation witness that reality and let history be the judge, but let us all chip in toward that end!” I am still consistently arguing that it is the responsibility of all of us to uplift Ethiopia.

Instead of burying oneself in the sand – the ostrich syndrome – the best critique of my article would have been a thoughtful analysis that is credible, plausible, and enumerates in plain but coherent English what Ethiopians can do for their country. Moreover, a critic’s responsibility is to critically examine concepts, themes, and controversies that are part of the corpus of a given essay without resorting to polemics and sarcastically appealing to the powers that be for attention and personal gains. However, as I have stated in the introduction of this essay, we must tolerate a broader continuum of perspectives including the sublime and the absurd. Our destiny has been to traverse a complex path tainted with positive and negative attributes, in order to achieve a relatively sane and democratic society. 

Copyright © IDEA, Inc. 2007. Dr. Ghelawdewos Araia can be contacted for constructive and educational feedback at dr.garaia@africanidea.org