Fekade’s article was intended to argue for the conclusion that it’s too late to have a meaningful and productive dialogue for the current Kinijit crisis and he recommended a response in terms of outrage as the way out, rather than dialogue. Fekade’s was a response to Prof. Messay’s article that argues for dialogue as a preferred solution for the current Kinijit crisis. Now Prof. Maimire argues to recommend a via media, i.e., a middle ground, or a compromise position, between Fekade and Prof. Messay: why pit dialogue against outrage? His answer? There is a room for both in a political environment such as Ethiopia’s.

I think all the solutions proposed by these three gentlemen fail to deliver the goods they recommend. Their responses fail because all three of them, like many others like theirs, are oblivious to the more fundamental root cause of the current Kinijit crisis and also likewise for similar past crises in Ethiopia’s political leadership and also, probably, more ensuing similar political crisis that, I think, we’ll continue to witness as long as the fundamental root cause of such crises is ignored and hence not addressed or gets misdiagnosed as I argue it’s been many times. In these exchanges of ideas about dialogue vs. outrage, only Tefferi Mengistie mentioned a possible root cause being “dysfunctional behavior” in the Ethiopian society which is what I’ve been arguing in several articles as the manifestation of predominantly vicious and destructive character traits such as lack of truthfulness, personal integrity and transparency, and arrogance, close-mindedness or being dogmatic or stubborn, and selfishness, etc, etc. It’s safe to say that such character traits are conducive and fertile grounds for values that would produce demagogues, not democrats out of us.
Now as we’ve come to hear many times these days some democratic values and practices are recommended as solutions for Ethiopia’s political crisis; I agree with whoever recommends the value of democratic ideals to bring about desirable political changes in countries such as Ethiopia. But the sad fact is that all those who recommend such ideals fail to see that their proposals put the cart before the horse, in that, as I argue, democracy cannot be practiced and flourish to a desirable degree, at least, overnight or so quickly, in a society that does not have conducive democratic values already in place or in a society that does not have a fertile environment for democratic values to flourish. Democracy does not drop from the sky, fellow Ethiopians! Our three gentlemen do not seem to realize that our political crises are deeply tied to the crises in values that democracy presupposes in order for democracy to flourish, in Ethiopia or wherever, but that is precisely what we’re lacking as a society.

The article by Dr. Maimire argues for the following point, among others: “But outrage must be understood politically and not morally. Moral outrage is more often than not a sign of powerlessness and tends to lead to purism, which, of course, is fundamentally anti-political. Political outrage, on the other hand, is, like dialogue, future oriented and seeks to bring about new circumstances that overthrow or transcend the present disastrous conditions.” And also, Dr. Maimire says, “The starting point of dialogue in the political arena is the future…. Since, the future can never be too late, and since dialogue’s starting point is our vision of the future, dialogue can never be too late”.

I think there are a number of problems with this argument. Dr. Maimire’s separation of political values (or democratic values) from moral values is wrong, or at least as I argue that it’s wrong to do so. I contend that there is no political principle nor is there politics which is morally neutral, or there are no democratic principles that can ignore the moral values and the moral fabric of the political leadership of a society. What we value to be politically valuable such as human rights, rule of the law, or the democratic values such as tolerance, freedom of expression of our ideas, respect for the views of the others, being able to accommodate different views and values and visions, etc., are not morally neutral at all.

Yes, democratic values are intrinsically valuable or good things. But then, for example, to use a human being as a means for whatever purpose is, generally, morally wrong and that is why we ought to be respectful to the political or human rights of others in the sphere of politics because moral principles underwrite fundamental political values. How can one consistently argue for respect of human rights if human beings could be used only as means to achieve some goals, be it political or otherwise? It’s immoral to use a fellow human being as only a means to achieve some end. Political or democratic principles that misunderstand or ignore such moral foundations of democratic values are simply mistaken. It’s crucial to realize that violations of human rights and human dignity in any political sphere are undemocratic and wrong because it’s first morally wrong to treat a fellow human being as means to some end. Therefore, politics without proper moral foundations is blind and hence misguided; and also morality that does not properly shape and guide politics is useless.

What does all this have anything to do with what is being discussed? I’ve just contended that Dr. Maimire’s claim that “…outrage must be understood politically and not morally” is wrong since such a claim is based on an unwarranted assumption that politics is morally neutral, at best, or politics does not have moral foundations, at worst. And also, Dr. Maimire claims that, “The starting point of dialogue in the political arena is the future. We want a democratic Ethiopia and we would like to know how to get there peacefully and quickly. This future is a beacon that throws light on the past, that is, on the past failures that we have to overcome and redeem in the future.” All these assertions, good and promising as they sound at face value, ignore the moral dimension of politics as I underscored above. The Kinijit crisis is not an isolated case of crisis in the Ethiopian society. As I suggested elsewhere (in the article mentioned above, among others) I also contend now that in light of these exchanges about dialogue vs. outrage, those who hope to see a quick solution for the Kinijit crisis as well as those who fail to take the moral fabric of politics more seriously are in the wrong direction when it comes to the real diagnoses of the Ethiopian political crises, Kinijit’s or others’. No wonder that wrong diagnosis of a problem would lead to a wrong prescription or recommendation as I’m trying to show.

I do not want to challenge the views about time that Dr. Maimire holds, at least for now, but I want to say that suggesting that “The starting point of dialogue in the political arena is the future …and Since, the future can never be too late, and since dialogue’s starting point is our vision of the future, dialogue can never be too late ” though superficially sounds true, it, however, ignores the crucial role that the past and the present moral failures of those in political leadership in Ethiopia play. For example, lying or deception is morally wrong, now or in the past and also in the future. Now I cannot make sense of a recommendation for Ethiopia’s political future that does not deal adequately with the moral failures of its political leadership now. I think if we fail to take into account the true root causes for Ethiopia’s political crises now, despite Dr. Maimire’s claim, it’ll be too late to wish things should have gone the other way at some point in the future. There is no future if there is no present and what we believe and do now, at present, is the cause of what will happen in the future.

And also, it’s wrong to exonerate politicians from moral failures when, yes, they morally fail. They are supposed to be leaders not only in just political talks but also as models of moral agency with corresponding responsibility to stand against wrong moral actions such as lying or deception. I cannot trust a political leader who is a habitual liar. As long as we, Ethiopians, avoid taking note of crucial virtuous character traits that must serve as foundations for a democratic society that we’re crying for, we’ll fail as a society in our aspirations, not once or twice, but multiple times. No wonder that we’ve already failed multiple times for failing to do the diagnoses of the true root causes for the failures of our aspirations for democracy, among so many other things.

Before I conclude this piece I want to underscore the fact that unless and until the moral fabric of the Ethiopian society, individually and collectively, changes, any wish for a fundamental change, in a short run, in the right direction of political change, is just being misguided and wrong. Ethiopia’s political leadership wouldn’t reflect values that are radically different from the prevalent values that the Ethiopian society, at large, holds and lives by. Hoping to see political leaders that exemplify, individually and collectively, values such as personal integrity, transparency, accountability, trustworthiness or truthfulness, humility, open-mindedness, etc., at the present and also in the future when we all realize that there are very few or no political leaders in the present Ethiopia that exemplify such virtues is an example of wishful thinking based on a wrong diagnoses of the root causes of our political paralyses. Ethiopia’s future cannot be radically different from its present, politically or otherwise, unless a miracle transpires, and those who look forward to the future assuming that it’d usher in an era of democracy and prosperity etc, will only be disappointed, again and again, when they realize that what we suffer as a society is not only from political crisis but also from a more fundamental crisis, that is crisis in character, or values that are the foundations for a better, and if you like, a democratic society.

Finally, I hope that those who contribute to this discussion about our political crises, at the present and in the immediate past and its possible future, would start to realize that a fruitful dialogue does not happen in a vacuum nor does it automatically happen in a culture and in a society that neither clearly comprehends the idea of a dialogue nor embraces it when it seems to be a valuable and viable option. I also hope that those who contribute to this discussion about our political crises start to realize that it takes a society that values virtuous character traits to denounce and reject its political leadership when its political leaders are living testimonies and embodiments of what it means to be people of vicious characters.

Please let’s not forget that a society that does not denounce, or express its moral outrage when its ordinary citizens are habitual liars cannot be expected to denounce its political leaders when they show in public what is commonly and widely embraced in their society as a “virtue”. Sad to say this but truth be told: our aspiration for a real democratic change will happen only if most of us, Ethiopians, change first, individually and collectively. Yes, the future of Ethiopia is in the hands of its citizens now and if we fail to change ourselves, no one will. Politicians? They need as much change of character for better as you and I do. That is truth about us and we all know that truth is stranger than fiction. Now I hope that some will see why that both dialogue and outrage without properly taking into account what I’ve argued for above are not viable solutions for our political crisis in Kinijit or in the broader political context we call Ethiopia.

A small application: As all the readers to these public exchanges of ideas have, hopefully, taken note of the issues I’ve raised above and in the article mentioned above might have witnessed some confirmation of some of the ideas in my articles, as those who’ve responded to one article or the other in this dialogue vs. outrage debate, have consistently ignored what I’ve been meaning to contribute to this debate. It’s one more confirmation, as I suspect, of the widely shared bad character traits of even among Ethiopia’s intellectuals to ignore ideas, ideas even worth responding to, if the writer is an unknown entity, among other possible reasons.
I chose to go by a pen name for a good personal reason. If these contributors thought that the points that I’ve raised are too shallow to take seriously and hence not worth responding to, I leave that to the readers to judge. If my arguments are too superficial to take seriously, again, I also want to leave this for our readers to judge. Now it’s good for us, Ethiopians, to know how much of our shared and collective bad character flaws dictate what we do the way we do it. For your information, I’ve emailed one of the participants in this exchange to thank him and also to let him know that I wanted to contribute to this important issue. I emailed him twice but have not even received a short note that acknowledges a receipt of an email from a fellow Ethiopian who wrote to say thank you. The others might have failed to take note of other fellow Ethiopians’ contributions to the same debate and discussion (mind you that these exchanges have been posted on the same website here) for whatever reasons but I submit this as the most likely explanation: they pick and choose to respond to one another because of some shared beliefs and values that they hold as Ethiopians from which they failed to transcend.

This suspicion, which could be wrong at the end of the day, is, however, consistent with what I’ve argued about such shared values in our society, in our community and also about our politicians and it’s high time fellow Ethiopians that we did an intense soul-searching and desire to change some of our destructive beliefs and values that even the most learned could not have transcended. In case some wonder why I brought up what I’ve just done in the application paragraphs, if some wonder if I felt ignored, etc, please do not go that way for if I’ve sought after recognition and respect and such things I’d have gone by my name and with the usual things that show that I’ve also got some education and some degrees and a title, if I’ve one. That is not me. So, please do not go that direction. If I care about anything I do care about truth and the marriage of truth and character. That is how I want to be known for if anyone wants to know who this person is. When truth is trivialized and when character flaws shape the life of individuals and a community in a destructive way, that hurts me and I feel the outrage and I think properly so.