Perspective On Professor Solomon Terfa’s Article Entitled “We Owe It To Them”

By Tintagu Tigley

In
his article We owe it to them,
Professor Solomon Terfa begins with a cliché
describing being a revolutionary when one is young i.e. ages 18-30 and that this
comes as a result of being  “motivated
by emotions and idealism”. He continues to inform us that If one remains
a revolutionary or aspires to be one past the age of 35, it is a defect in
character and according to the professor  an indication that “something
is still wrong with him” . It almost seems that the cliché the
professor uses is put in his piece  to ridicule older revolutionaries
i.e. those   over 35 years of
age. This cliché portends to the reader the incoherent representation and
superficial treatment of complex issues the professor  raises.  It is one thing to disagree with the
Marxist theory and Marxist revolutionaries, but to imply that Marx, Lenin,
Stalin, Mao, Chomsky, Angela Davis, Richard Wolff etc
and others that remained revolutionaries into their old age, according to the
professor,  shows
that “something is wrong with them” or are retarded,  defies  conventional wisdom.

The
professor’s treatment of the February 1974 Ethiopian revolution that
toppled Ethiopia’s last monarchy lacks a scholarly rigor and account. His
piece aligns him with the chorus of anti-left rhetoric that permeated most
magazine reviews, analysis, and accounts churned out, particularly in the Diaspora,
by PhD sharp shooters from academia beginning with the demise of Mengistu’s reign. The professor’s piece glosses
over the backward and stifling conditions of  the feudal system under
which  Ethiopians lived in  pre-revolutionary Ethiopia.  His article fails to mention the
movements and demands from every sector of society for equality and reform that
preceded the revolution.  The
professor also did not adequately analyze the set back Mengistu’s
blood thirsty rampage that began in 1977(when he took the reigns of power)  and ended with
his demise in 1991. The professor’s treatment of historical analysis of
the Ethiopian Student Movement (ESM) , the Marxist
Leninist ideology, the revolutionary experience of Russia and China…etc.  is disturbingly
shallow  and  down right
disappointing.

The
demands for “land to the tiller”, the right of association, the
right to free speech, press, etc raised by that generation and all  other
struggles for democracy and a 
democratic government that came up during the revolution are not
reviewed at all by the professor. Why the professor feels compelled to
apologize for that generation for raising these democratic demands is not
clear.  The professor tells us  “The
intention of this writing is not, by any means, to blame and condemn that
generation. It is however to appeal to our rational senses and come out,
however difficult that may be, and eat crow”  With these statements, the
professor  unabashedly anoints
himself as a high priest and stands before the apology alter  to say “mea culpa”  on behalf of those gallant heroes that
raised those democratic demands. On their behalf, the professor wants also to
communion by symbolically, his words, “eating the crow”. Fiendish
is the appropriate word to describe the professor’s  behavior and disposition. 

The
professor describes disparagingly veterans  of that generation by saying
“the generation of Ethiopian students, now between the ages of 60 and 75,
that is unfortunately responsible for the sad state of affairs of our beloved
Ethiopia and its people ….. embroiled in over
the last 40 years.”  To be
sure, mistakes were made in the struggle to bring change and trying to solve centuries
old problems , but the professor accuses that gallant
and golden generation that perished in the struggle and the aging but living
veterans of the struggle  as his  waste basket to discard all the  ills caused by a backward system and the
aftermath of a failed revolution. With this act, the professor
 joins a strident and steady reactionary
chorus of blame “ that generation”.  The real question to the  professor is,   when a revolution fails,  do we attribute any and all ills of a
nation that has been struggling for democracy to a generation or should we
critically and thoroughly discuss the 
problems of democracy raised then and now,  draw lessons from our past experience and
reach a correct  assessment that
helps our current struggle?

In
so many words, the professor tells us “Marxism”, as written by
Marx,  was  a weapon for the working class to
overthrow the bourgeoisie in a ripe capitalist nation and form socialism , that
Lenin “subverted” Marx’s theory by  applying it to backward Russia until,
that is,  thanks to Mr. Gorbachev
who rescued that nation from a failing system.  Mao was also wrong trying to apply Marx’s
theory to China, 
a backward nation then,  where capitalism was not ripe  and it was savior Deng Tsiao Ping that set it on the right course and revived
China’s failing socialist economy by gearing it to capitalism.  From this the professor concludes,  all we need
is  capitalism and “liberal
democracy” as a system for Ethiopia and all other third world countries
to advance or progress.

Socialist
states had and have their problems in correctly applying Marxism-Leninism but
does failure in application of the theory equal to  the negation of Marxist philosophy
or theory of revolution. The professor does not explain that. Russia and China,
according to the professor reverted back to capitalism, but has this reversion cured
these countries from any social and economic challenges?  The professor, without any discourse on
this, seems to simply say that liberalism and capitalism are  the final destination of human
attempt to reach a perfect socio-economic system. Furthermore, the professor
doesn’t address  the global crisis of capitalism
today and all its problems and show us how it  fairs any better when we are witnessing the
increased working poor and the 
rebellions in Greece, Spain, Ireland and  the 1% vs the
99 %  working poor in the US. The
professor simply wants us to close our eyes and  believe the capitalist system is  something to emulate. When it comes to
our own country, the 
professor, doesn’t analyze for us the impacts of
globalization in the world we live in now and the disadvantages developing
countries like ours face and how we will bring about capitalism given the
constraints of the current reality of the world.  Since capitalism fully developed in
Europe and not equally anywhere else , he seems to
imply that there is something inherently wrong with all other third world
countries because they have failed to 
successfully achieve  or develop
into capitalism. .  Like the
professor, those capitalist representatives always remind  us that we failed to develop
capitalism because  we are  just simply inferior people.   The professor is telling us that Russia
and China etc would have developed to capitalism as did  Europe and US  if they did not attempt to venture and  experiment with socialism.

Through
the four corridors, i.e. North, South, East and West  of our beloved country, young men
and young girls en masse are on a daily exodus to neighboring countries in epic
proportions to save their souls from the brunt of grinding destitution and
wanton human right abuse at home. Those that survive the trek of a harsh environment
seem to be destined to an alien place where they become abused, tortured, maimed,
humiliated, burned and killed by their new masters.  Ethiopian infants have become the new
commodity for sale to affluent countries thanks to capitalist exchange and liberal
democracy. Sales of fertile farming land (Gambella), land
to excavate potash used in making fertilizers,(.Afar), land to mine precious
metals (gold, silver etc Adola,
Wellega ) is sold by the EPRDF/ TPLF government in
Ethiopia with disregard to the right of individuals or groups professor.

 “Our generation of students
……follow Lenin’s path to building socialism and resolve the national question using his and
Stalin’s works on the national question” writes the professor.   At the heart of the
professor’s narrative that followed is a contention that there are no
nationalities but only Ethiopians in our country and that “self
determination upto and including secession” is alien
or unapplicable to Ethiopia.  The youth of that generation should have
denied the existence 
of many nationalities and so, the Oromo, Somali, Sidama, Gurage, Tigre, Amhara, Eritreans etc, are
homogeneous people and have no distinction among themselves.  Furthermore, we are to believe that they
all had equal treatment and were content under the monarchy and there was no question
of oppressed nationalities.  If we
sincerely and objectively look at it, isn’t the existence of so many
liberation fronts ( EPLF, TPLF, OLF, ONLF, SLF, WSLF
etc,)  an indication of
discontent?  Mengistu
and Haile Selassie believed that  their war policy would have solved
this discontent. Well professor, did it?  I argue it made matters worse not better.

The
professor writes his , “ 1992 survey conducted
among 650 university and high school students from eight different regions of
the country: Addis Ababa, Bale, Gojjam, Gidole,
Kembata,
Arsi,
Wolaita,
and Gamu
Gofa
(Terfa,
1993,5-21)
…. illustrates these nationalities are content
with their Ethiopianess.  Furthermore,  “An objective assessment and
analysis of Ethiopia’s socio-political situation would have shown that a large majority of Ethiopians were proud of
being Ethiopians” and hence the professor  implies from this, that there are no
oppressed nationalities, no question of autonomy or self-determination.   His apprehension that these words
would disintegrate the nation is understandable, especially because  the EPRDF/TPLF  core leadership’s decision to push and
sign for the  Eritrean succession
from the rest of Ethiopia.  Meles pushed for this in order to shake off a competitor in  EPLF  and consolidate his own party’s political
and economic power over the rest of Ethiopia.   But to expect from this, that the
current rulers in Ethiopia are about to grant any “self-determination or
succession” to any of the oppressed nationalities flies in the face of the
current reality on the ground.  EPRDF/TPLF
dictatorship is bent on 
subduing the oppressed nationality liberation movements in Oromia, Ogaden, Gambella,, and follows a scortch
earth policy in Ogaden and practices a divide and
conquer policy on all nationality/ethnic groups. In fact, EPRDF/TPLF   considers  the whole of Ethiopia its  private property. Marxist ideology is not
what EPRDF/ TPLF practices, though the professor claims it does, but the most
pernicious form of narrow nationalism and hatred politics bent on self-serving
and extending its dictatorial rule.

 What is the meaning of calling a whole
group of people “donkeys” and legislating laws that effectively bankrupt
and impose  gag
orders on  journalists critical to
EPRDF/TPLF rule? The number of jailed journalists and opposition figures is
crowding the prisons    Opposition  parties and their representatives
are hunted down, jailed or exiled under one pretext or another. EPRDF/TPLF cadres
are creating havoc by interfering in the religious affairs (Moslem and
Christian) Religious leaders are 
labeled terrorists and these are hardly signs of democracy or freedom
but as one group put it, “…a dictatorship of the terrorist type”.
Professor, It is not EPRDF/TPLF declaring any “self determination upto and including succession” that is a threat to
disintegration of Ethiopia but the war policies of  previous and the current government of
Ethiopia for any demand for self-determination,  democracy or  any threat they perceive  to their rule.  After smashing the old Ethiopian state in
1991, and eventually replacing it with the EPRDF/TPLF state machinery, it was
important for the late prime minister to cook up the “theory of developmental
state”  to maintain and  extend his parties dictatorial rule, i.e keep the status quo of the current state to perpetuity.

The
professor writes “Marxism-Leninism and liberal democracy…. It
should be stated that these two philosophies provide different approaches to solving
problems between people and also between the people and their governments”.
Yes, the two philosophies are different.  Marxist philosophy expounds class
relations, class struggle  and class politics. As opposed to
this,  the
professor writes “For liberal democracy, the right of the individual is
paramount and, therefore, should not be subordinated to the right of a group or
a collective.” In the current reality of Ethiopia, where any kind of
right is absent i.e. whether it is individual or group, ethnic,  religious ,   professional organizations,
non-profit organizations, , labor unions etc., .it is absurd to talk of only
individual right to the exclusion of other such rights.   

So
the logical question is , how do we bring about
democratic governance when the governing EPRDF/TPLF party has a constitution
that itself completely disregards?. How is a well written piece of constitution
on paper going to bring good governance, group or individual freedom for that
matter? When legitimacy of power of the people is undermined, the consent of
the governed is trampled upon,  separation of powers  is non-existent shouldn’t the
proper question be how should we bring  about a democratic system?

You  write  ““Ethnic politics and the
fear of potential civil war have led many voters to give up hope for a
democratic society. Many citizens have lost belief  in the democratic process,
considering elections to be merely a ritual….”  your  quote of  a BTI 2012 Ethiopia Country Report. I
don’t believe the Ethiopian people fear fighting for their rights or  for democracy.
They still resist EPRDF/TPLF’s  brutal oppression and on
occasions come out to demonstrate their demands. If any hope seems “to
fade”,  it
is on the continuing  dismal
performance of an incoherent and fractious 
opposition  that consistently
fails to provide leadership.

Professor,
your  abridged
lesson on US history is welcome and we can learn from people’s struggles
what it took/takes to build a democratic system. You plead with us to “.. relegate the following concepts and principles i.e., national question; self
determination; class struggle; prison house of nations; dictatorship of
the proletariat; communism and socialism to the dust bin of history. On
what basis  you
want to relegate these concepts  to
the dustbin of history is not clear? You never discussed the recent history of half
of the world’s people including ours to make your case. If it was that
easy to invalidate Marx”s critique of the  capitalist
system  and his analysis of exploitative
societies that preceded it, how come you don’t have a discourse  on it and make your case ?
Do you believe  the relationship of  labor and capital has no conflict of
interest? With the advent of globalization and imperialist powers vying for
influence in third world countries and international capital doing business with
Ethiopia , are you asking us to believe this will help
a  capitalist system to develop in
Ethiopia ? Are we to believe the  selling our natural resources
away to  foreign  banks advances democracy and capitalist development
in Ethiopia? Or is 
it that you have  an
expectation  a ‘trickle
down’ effect from doing business with international capital to bring us
capitalist development? Have you concluded that the world capitalist system we
experience now is where we are all destined to join? Please explain professor. I
agree with you that “…the path taken and the achievements made so
far … betray the struggle, aspiration and sacrifice of the above
mentioned patriots…”  but , unlike you professor, what
I believe we owe “that generation” and our people they died
for,  is a democratic system with a
home grown solution for our problems. Neither discarding or replacing
capitalist vocabulary for socialist ones or vice-versa and/or  “dej
Tenat” to the US State Department will bring us
a democratic system.

By:Tintagu Tigeley

The
author can be reached at

[email protected]