In our troubled times, the written word is a
powerful tool. I am referring to the recent article by Professor Messay Kebede
titled “Meles’s Political
Dilemma and the Developmental State: Dead-Ends and Exit” that has
been posted in most Ethiopian Websites on 15th June 2011, which has
started a tsunami of controversial ideas. I found also some well written pieces
in response to the article by Messay Kebede, which comments and criticisms I
read with great interest, such as the pieces by Said Hassan [“A Rejoinder of Professor Messay’s
article: ‘Meles’s Political Dilemma…’”], Abiye
Teklemariam [“Mind the Jump: A
Brief Response to Prof. Messay Kebede”] et cetera. Thus, let me interject that one must
read the statements of our fellow Ethiopians with alertness, care, and respect.
This
article or “manifesto,” as Messay identified it, is a piece of
writing which raised and resolved several complex issues in mere twelve pages that
others would have written books and still fail to reach the profound insights
that Messay generously shared with us. I wish Messay had not used the word
“manifesto” to identify his article, for the piece is far more
insightful and reasoned than being mere reductionist declaratory advocacy that
a “manifesto” usually is.
First,
let me consider in much generalized form what some of the critics of the
Article by Messay had written: in case of Said, the criticism revolves around allegation
that Messay had left out some significant aspects of a “developmental State”
vis-à-vis the situation of Ethiopia under Meles Zenawi and his EPRDF
supporters; and in case of Abiye, an expressed “deep
disenchantment” of Messay’s “abandonment” of the
election based democratic development struggle, for elite-controlled
authoritarian “developmental state” processes. Of course, both Said
and Abiye have stated much more in their responses, both authors have augmented
their comments with theoretical insights and practical observations of our
Ethiopian struggle for “democracy.” I understand the concerns of
both, for their concerns are genuine and very much well known to us all from
their long list of articles and commentaries posted in Websites and their long
standing unwavering opposition to oppressive and dehumanizing political and
economic systems focusing on Ethiopia under the iron-rule of Meles Zenawi and
his supporters.
I
see misunderstanding in the reading of Messay’s Article by very many
other readers as well, who actually cared to read the Article (highly
commendable) and shared their comments. I read also very few belligerent and
irresponsible statements that were completely out of line. Personal attack in
all instances is ad homineum, it does
not enlighten or expand the discourse at hand; it is more of a detraction and
undermines the seriousness of the subject matter under consideration. As an
aside, I have noticed in general in recent time that there is a decline of
Ethiopians attacking each other in delinquent and irresponsible manners in
blogs/websites except in Warka. I
give great credit for such positive changes in the polite and disciplined responses
of very many Ethiopians, such as Eskinder Nega, Abebe Gelaw, Abiye Teklemariam,
Said Hassan, Teodros Kiros, Lt. Ayal-Sew Dessie, Seyee Abraha, Fekadu Bekele, Aregawi
Berhe, and Messay Kebede himself who under fire in websites, public
conferences, and/or radio programs lead the way in civility. Actually, several
more could be listed here. I do have serious disagreements with some of the
aforementioned individuals; nevertheless, I acknowledge here their contributions
in presenting their ideas with manifest respect of their audience, for they
have greatly ennobled public discourse. I hope we all adopt their public
demeanor in dealing with some belligerents or hacklers.
What
seems to have irked both Said and Abiye, for example, Messay in his article is
not defending or writing an apology for “developmental states”
economic theories. For example, Abiye wrote, “It seems to me that what
prompts Messay to consider this path to democratization is his enthusiasm for
the developmental state.” Here is where the first misunderstanding
starts. Messay is merely explaining what “developmental states” stands
for, what local conditions need be taken into account, how genuine the
leadership ought to be or whether the leadership has the capacity to carry out
the intricate structural adjustments that need be made, et cetera.I understand there is a very thin line
between explanation and justification. Some may have misunderstood the essence
of Messay’s article and may have read it as justification rather than for
what it truly is—an explanation and discussion of a concept. Messay is
not supportive of the “developmental States” let alone the brutally
oppressive Government of Meles Zenawi. It would require some tortured logic to squeeze
out such finding form the Article by Messay.
There
are, on the other hand, some pointed superb discussions on the point of
democratization (on its philosophy and manifestations), about a magical point
in the life of a struggle where the breakthrough to democracy manifests. Especially,
I find Abiye’s statements, in defending views that he thought was
abrogated or abandoned by Messay, namely the roughs in liberal democracy vs. neo-liberal
democracy and the process of development quite impressive, but presumptuous.
The attempt to delaminate philosophical theory from economic theory is futile,
for we may be surprised to find how interconnected the two are. This is a
situation where we are in circular argument, the old dilemma of the
“chicken or the egg.” My concern goes beyond mere issues of
rhetorical arguments, but why must we need to have contrasts to understand
problems. I find the same type of problems in mathematics
“equalization” process too, to mention an analogy to better
understand my concerns. Why should there be such designation in order to
understand a situation. The economic ramifications is even more problematic,
bordering the absurd if we try to use the economic concepts that go with
neo-liberalism in case of Ethiopia whose economy is not of consequence in the
global economic system of globalization.
I
find it quite presumptuous for us Ethiopians to be hairsplitting between
liberalism and neoliberalism when we are the least developed nation on earth
with minuscule involvement in the global economy. Labeling and categorization
had done us tremendous harm in the past. I cannot forget the countless
Ethiopians murdered as a result of pseudo Marxist theoreticians and military
thugs who wiped out whole generations of Ethiopians by labeling them
“Adharis,”Tsere
Abyotegnoch”et cetera. I am
always skeptical about any argument that is based on definitions of particular
words. I prefer to consider the facts of a case and the circumstance in which it figures rather to match label to
some selected facts or situation.
The
dispute whether a “developmental state” is a democratic state seems
superfluous, for it seems to equate economic development with democratic system
of government, which of course is not a bright argument or supposition. All one
needs to present is the case of China, or the case of former Soviet Union, or
the cases of countless East European countries and Latin American countries;
even the United States is a borderline socialist state with its social welfare
system and extensive regulation of production not to mention its extortionist
tax system that effectively redistribute income. We soon find out that we are
dealing with shades rather than stark or sharp contrasts. The dispute could be
resolved by defining what is meant by development and what is meant by
democracy. It is possible to see a confluence point for such understanding, and
we will have less zeal in establishing differences, but devotion in finding
solutions.
Messay is not a hasty thinker; he is capable
of maintaining sustained discourse on a subject matter for years at times. He
is a reflective thinker, as would be expected of his caliber and stature.We had several conversations on such
issues on Meles Zenawi and the political and economic situation of Ethiopia. Although
our discourse were contentious, we usually seem to end up with similar
conclusions on a number of controversial issues including the many points
Messay discussed in his article. The reason I am saying all this is to lay out
some background setting. However, I have serious disagreement on some
suppositions Messay has made in his article, although not that important in the
overall picture of his analytical essay. He made the unnecessary delamination
between power and wealth in characterizing the leaders of the EPRDF and TPLF,
namely between Meles and his supporters “cronies” as Messay would
call them.
“One outcome of
Meles’s rise to absolute power that could turn out positive is his
ability to dismantle the rent-seeking state. I venture to say that absolute
power has given Meles some autonomy vis-à-vis his followers; I even
suggest that a disparity between his interests and that of his followers is
inevitable. The passion of Meles is power; the goal of his followers is
enrichment. The rent-seeking activities that they use to enrich themselves
prevent Meles from achieving the economic growth by which he can justify his
control of absolute power. He has now the choice of maintaining the old
structure, with the consequences that his power will become increasingly
fragile, or resolutely dissolve it through reforms. In order to do the latter,
he needs the support of the opposition.” [page 11]
I believe in order to make such grand
distinction about the motives of political players, Messay, must depend on
careful individual psychological profiling of Meles Zenawi and his supporters.
In short of that, one may make guarded suppositions based on empirical
evidences collected over a period of time on the life-histories of the same. In
both Meles and his supporters’ cases, their families’ histories
establish the facts of their poverty, almost all coming from poor rural or semi-urbanized
peasant families.
Meles’s primary needs from childhood to
the time of his adulthood were of the material kind; he is no different than
Mengistu Hailemariam’s social and economic poverty as his background. He
suffered social ostracization, poverty, and social stigma of a different kind,
but no less traumatic than the one suffered by Mengistu. Thus, in
contradistinction to what Messay’s thesis, I hold that Meles’s
first and foremost motive must have been the acquisition of wealth and material
security rather than power. And he used that control of material wealth to
acquire political power, and more wealth, with the absurd result that he now
controls fabulous wealth estimated to be worth billions of dollars. Even now with all his billions, people
who knew him closely say that he is the stingiest/miserly individual in the
TPLF. Thus, the deriving motive for Meles and almost all of the TPLF members
first and foremost was materially secured existence. I have not seen in my research
of over fifteen years any convincing evidence of Ethiopian nationalism or
patriotism in the history of TPLF and its Leaders. The moving force behind all
the power struggle and tenacious attachment to power is insatiable greed for money
and wealth.
Messay is clearly convinced that Meles cannot
bring about even the “developmental State” let alone democracy
based on elections because Meles’s interest is in staying in power, and
not economic development per se, but
Messay also points out the eternal contradiction that Meles’s pursuit of
power stands in conflict with economic developmental changes that need be in
place to maintain the state structure and Meles’s power.Messay was not advocating that Meles
must do this or that, but simply pointing out the fault lines where Meles
Zenawi falters and the deep chasm of political and economic outlooks and
understanding between Meles and his supporters in Government and/or the EPRDF.
“To the question of whether Meles and his
cronies are anywhere close to being a developmental elite, the answer is, of
course, no. This negative answer does not, however, mean that they are
unable to become developmental. I am not saying that some such transformation
will occur or that it is inevitable. As a strong skeptic of determinism in
history, I am simply referring to the possibility inherent in the human person
to finally make the right choice and laying some conditions necessary to effect
the transformation. Since my position will certainly cause an array of
objections, even angry attacks, it is necessary that I set out the arguments
liable to back it up.” [page 9, emphasis mine in bold]
Messay went on explaining the basic theory of
transformations and theories on power. His statements are not justifications
for a particular action or program helpful for Meles and his supporters; rather
it explained the situation most likely to be the case. In this instance, Messay
is at best just sharing his conjectures based on his deep understanding of both
philosophical underpinnings of political systems and the surprises of
historical reality in the day to day life of a system with people in it, and at worst one may dismiss it as some wild
speculation of an aging Marxist. I prefer the former.
I admire Messay Kebed greatly, he is one of the
finest philosophers I had the good fortune to have met in my life, even
comparing him with some of my own teachers who are quite renowned philosophers.
He is my enduring good friend, a man of great charm, who is a truly polite and
civilized man. And I say all these with emotion, for I am witness of Messay’s
greatest love being Ethiopia, all of it. He is someone I could entrust the fate
of Ethiopia. It is of no interest to me how he lived his intellectual life
before 1991. What I see in Messay now is a sincere deep thinker who loves his
country and his people dearly. It pains me greatly when we translate our
failure in understanding his profound and deep thoughts and attack his person
because of our own mediocrity or hasty conclusions.
The highly informative and well presented
criticisms and/or statements by Said Hassan and Abiye Teklemariam on
Messay’s Article are not in the categories I am castigating. In fact,
such brief responses by two greatly gifted and skilled scholars are of tremendous
importance in promoting discourse and understanding with depth. I commend them
both. My concern here is that even the best of us could make mistaken
assessments under our overcharged political and economic circumstances. And
such differences of views ought not be raised to a point of condemnations or
personal attacks. I believe there is a misunderstanding, maybe a confusion
between what is being offered by Messay as an explanation and hypothetical
positing of our current political and economic situation, and a perceived justification
of unacceptable flirtation with the work of a deranged and brutal dictator
Meles Zenawi, whose traitorous crimes against the State of Ethiopia and the People
of Ethiopia will never be excused on any ground.
