Book Review and Miscellaneous Comments
16 December, 2010 | Tecola Worq Hagos
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“And the impulse to write is almost always fired by reading.
Reading, the loveof reading, is what makes you dream of becoming a
writer. And long after you’vebecome a writer, reading books others
write – and rereading the beloved books ofthe past – constitutes an
irresistible distraction from writing.” Susan Sontag
I. Introduction
Professor Teodros Kiros [hereafter “Teodros”] is a well established
personality in our Ethiopian Diaspora community (political life) due to his
exemplary hard work and commitment to our political and social struggles. In
several of his outstanding books, numerous essays and articles, we are
privileged to learn about ourselves, about our struggle, and about our hopes
and aspirations. Teodros is no charlatan trying his hand in this or that, but a
well educated, brilliant, and socially conscious individual. He received his B.A.
at University of Wisconsin and his Ph.D. in Political Philosophy at Kent State
University . The following two books (under review) are his most recent
contribution to our Ethiopian discourse: Teodros Kiros, Philosophical Essays,
Trenton , NJ : The Red Sea Press, 2011. [Teodros-1]; Teodros Kiros,
Ethiopian Discourse, Trenton , NJ : The Red Sea Press, 2011. [Teodros-2]
In fact, Teodros’s sphere of involvement and influence is much wider than our
own Ethiopian locality. He devoted all of his adult life in reminding us that
there is a much higher plane to all our political and social involvements. To
wit here are some of his outstanding books you all might want to explore: 1)
Zara Yacob, A seventeenth Century Rationalist: Philosopher of the Rationality
of the Human Heart, The Red Sea Press, 2005; 2) Self-Construction and the
Formation of Human Values: Truth, Language, and Desire, Praeger
Paperback, 2001; 3) Explorations In African Political Thought, Routledge,
2001; 4) Moral Philosophy & Development: The Human Condition in Africa,
Ohio University Press, 1992.
I am tempted to ask what motivates Teodros to write with such depth and
scope on a subject that seems, on the surface, contingent to a fruitful academic
life. To a great extent, Teodros has answered that question where he stated, “I
write because writing is my vocation. I enjoy it. But joy is not the only reason. I
write because I consider myself a responsible citizen of the Ethiopia that I love
from the depth of my veins. I do not write to please the public; if I did, my life
would be so different. To the extent that I can, I try to write truthfully at all
times, although that habit will not make me ‘the person of the year’ or even
lead me to the right job.” [Teodros-2, p231] If we seek one word to draw as
identification adjective to tag on Teodros, the word most appropriate to use
would be “courageous.”
What is not published as often as his writings is about Teodros’s commitment
to academic life and his exceptional contribution in the field of continental
philosophy and ethics from a trajectory that is unique. His views on human
endeavor are often interwoven in books and essays dealing with pressing social
and economic issues. All of his books deal with economic and social issues
(ethics and philosophy). Most of his writing is involved with the interpretation
of principles and norms and in relating factual matters to such principles and
norms. It is in this context of critical thinking or hermeneutics that I chose to
review his recent books.
Both books under review are compilation of a series of essays and
commentaries he wrote and published over a period of time. Theodros-1
seems to be more thematically focused than Teodros-2. Teodros-2 is eclectic
in the range of subjects discussed over a period of over ten years. Thus, in
reading the books under review one cannot help but feel revisiting known
terrine of ideas. Nevertheless, there is a degree of novelty in the book-matrix
that it is worth our effort to devote time to read these very important books.
By way of reassuring all of my readers that there is nothing wrong in collected
materials i.e., individual articles in a book form, to be part of our book
collections, for references and occasional refreshing reading. I direct your
attention to an outstanding article on the virtue (“sin” in the author’s
own word) of rereading as expounded beyond the pale by David Gate in his
beautifully and passionately crafted article “Now, Read it Again” of June 27,
2009, in Newsweek. “I'm always rereading …The simple answer is that they
give me joy. They fill me with the voices of people I know, thousands of
them—many times the number in that old Dickens print—the real and the
imagined, the living and the dead. Heaven may be like this eventually, but why
wait around when it's right here, right now?”
II. The Case of Philosopher Zera Yacob
There are some serious questions that need be answered satisfactorily about
the translation into English of the Hatetat of Zera Yacob by Professor Claude
Sumner. The treatise of Zärʾa Yaʻe̳qob and of Wäldä Ḥe̳yw·at, was first
printed in 1976. In the book, there is no one named translator, but that of the
name of Claude Sumner is stated as the author. Sumner has no knowledge of
Geez to qualify him as translator of such work. That fact has casted a dark
shadow on the authenticity and credibility of the translation as presented by
Sumner. This means that any writing based on such translation is also
challenged because its referential book is challenged.
An Ethiopian scholar wrote some times back that “Sumner proved that the
author of the Treatise was not an Italian Capuchin Giusto d'Urbino, who lived
in Ethiopia in the 19th century; Giusto d'Urbino himself never said the work
was his own but told that he had bought the manuscript.” That is well
and good but it still remains for us to have a verifiable translation. It is not to
discredit the voluminous work and devotion of Sumner to Ethiopia and its
people that I am questioning the quality and authenticity of the translation of
ZeraYacob’s great philosophical work, but to ensure that we pass to the next
generation authenticated documents. Are we dealing here with the copy that
was acquired by d’Urbino or some other version? Where is the original Geez
version that was the basis for the translated work of Sumner? The problem of
authenticity and proper inclusion of unnamed and shadowy Ethiopian
translators as “Translators” in very many books/works by foreigners on
Ethiopia is the single most serious and persisting defect that need be corrected.
It is obvious that Teodros adores Zera Yacob, the seventeenth century
philosopher par excellance. [Teodros-2, 36-50] It is heart warming to read a
serious scholar devoting his time and intellect to elucidate and explain an
Ethiopian Philosopher that some consider the equal of Descartes, if not his
superior intellectual brother. Teodros poured his heart and soul in his book on
Zera Yacob: Zara Yacob, A seventeenth Century Rationalist: Philosopher of
the Rationality of the Human Heart, The Red Sea Press, 2005. It is with great
emotional difficulty that I discount the value of Teodros’s book on Zera Yacob
completely. This has nothing to do with the quality of the analysis or the
presentation of the ideas and arguments by Teodros if we assume the
translation is a legitimate one and could be verified from the original Geez. The
problem is with the translation work of Sumner. We have no way of verifying
what is claimed to be a translation. We do not know who translated the Geez
into English. For sure it is not Sumner for he could hardly find his way even in
Amharic let alone Geez. We need to have the copy of the original Geez
side by side with any translation so that there could be possible verification
and testing for accuracy.
An entire field of philosophical enquiry has developed from such initial
concerns about the accuracy of translations and the appropriateness of
interpretations of biblical texts (medieval and early medieval works). Over a
period of time such rigorous discipline took a life of its own and developed
into a discipline called hermeneutics. Other than the serious technical
difficulties that would deteriorate and affect the substance of the original
book, there are also exaggerated claims that Zera Yacob’s writing has
somehow contributed to “the development of African philosophy.” One must
be careful in making such claims. The first question that comes to mind is the
question of publication and wide distribution of Zara Yacob’s work for it to
have some such impact. The second question has to do with the existence of
an “African philosophy” in the sense of categories or types of philosophies.
Both concerns/questions are very difficult to address in a definitive manner.
In this book review and miscellaneous comments I am not pouring cold water
on a passionate expose of a philosopher by being highly critical of the
translation/authorship of Sumner, but rather I am concerned in the verification
and authenticity of the work of the Zera Yacob as presented in translation in
English with no way of checking on the quality of the translation. I would
offer a compromise in rehabilitating the works of Zera Yacob by suggesting
that there be constituted a panel of experts in Geez to translate the work of
ZeraYacob. But first, what must be done now is to have the original Geez
writing verified by experts and submit the same to a body of qualified Geez
scholars from Ethiopia . Ethiopian Orthodox Church scholars must be
represented in such a panel of experts. At any rate, in private communication,
Teodros has assured me that he has the Geez version of Zera Yacob’s
work in his collections. It is very reassuring and calming to know that. It may
be the case that the book and articles written by Teodros may well be
vindicated for being based then on a text that is legitimated and authenticated.
The first step in that direction is to publish Zera Yacob in his original Geez.
III. Democracy: Greeks v. the Rest
A number of Ethiopians in the Diaspora talk or write about “democracy” with
such intensity that they may give to an outsider the impression that they may be
worshiping some god called “democracy.” The irony is that we Ethiopians in
general are not democratic as individuals or as a community. We are much
more militaristic and hierarchical than we imagine. However intensely we bring
up the subject of democracy in most of our discourses, it is yet mostly
superficial and has no firm grounding in the lives of those of us who
incessantly talk or write about democracy. One great exception may well be
Teodros who is consistently devoted to the democratic model. Having said
that, I should mention some disagreements I have with Teodros in the history
of the development of “democracy.” Teodros concentrated on Plato and
Aristotle in discussing democracy. [Teodros-1, ppxxi-xxiv, 1-19] It seems to
me that is a choice of personalities rather than fact based reflection. It is a
curious choice for Teodros to associate democratic political ideas with Plato or
Aristotle unless we equate rationalism with democracy.
I am quite sure from historical records that Cleisthenes is the one person
credited to have reorganized Athenian society into a system that is the
precursor of a representative democratic political structure. Especially
considering the fact that Cleisthenes was from a powerful aristocratic family
in power, it was a great achievement then moving an aristocratic land based
power structure into some form of a representative political structure. This
must be considered in stark contrast to Plato who was in support of an elitist
political hierarchy rigidly structured by class that resembled a caste system.
Aristotle favored too an aristocracy. Neither philosopher could be considered
a democratic thinker. It is clear, for example from the Apology of Plato that the
statement of Socrates was not in any way indicative of any ideation of
democracy. Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth of Athens, in
essence euphemistically speaking for corrupting the then existing system of
government, which was a democratic one that had lapsed momentarily into a
dictatorship. The injustice Socrates suffered does not in anyway transform him
into a democratic thinker. He was all his life against the common man, an elitist
in his ideology and a sophist in his method of argument.
There is the possibility that I might have misread the trajectory that Teodros
grounded his perception/evaluation in according prominent places to Plato and
Aristotle on the subject of democracy. To me both philosophers were
detractors rather than promoters of “democracy” as a system of government.
At any rate, Teodros explained to us that the democratic form or structure
of a society is not uniquely Western but also practiced all over the world at
one point in past human history. This is all true, because it is supported by
anthropological and sociological studies and findings by numerous experts and
researchers.
Teodros is not a rigid or inflexible thinker. He adjusts his ideas with flow of
time that reflects his constantly evolving mind. There is nothing more
satisfying to see a man of great talent constantly struggling to perfect his craft
and his ideas changing and adjusting his conclusions as a result of critical self
examination and honesty. I quote here a very illustrative statement by Lewis
Gordon in his Preface to Teodros-1, “In writing to his Ethiopian sisters and
brothers with the call to critical reflection on democratic participation and
justice through drawing upon their creative resources and reflective judgment,
Kiros is engaging in that radical reflective spirit of universalizing praxis. In this
sense, in all his homes—in Ethiopian and North American thought—he
exemplifies the value of fearless speech, and in so doing, speaks to us all.”
IV. Contractarians and the Birth of Modern (Liberal) Democracy
Even with all the pitfalls in generalizing a complex people and with the risk of
drawing a simplified identification, I do not think of us Ethiopians as uniquely
African, for we are foremost Ethiopians, an identity forged by thousands of
years of pounding by the hammer and anvil of history shaped into a tempered
distinct people (singular). Teodros’s discussion of our current political
situation and thinking is grounded in the works of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau,
Hume, and Madison. This part of his work constitutes the first half of his
entire book. [Teodros-1, 21-54]. The core ideas of those philosophers as
expounded by Teodros suggest that they were not all cut from the same
philosophy-cloth. True, all of them seem to be contractarians, but that is the
extent of their similarity. For example, Hobbes thinks that man in the state of
nature is beastly, whereas for Rousseau man in nature is at his natural best and
that it is civil society that is responsible for all individual deformities.
Teodros admires Rawls, which is wonderful. I had also the good fortune of
meeting Rawls at Harvard. I met him at a time when he looked emaciated in his
declining health, but Teodros had a meaningful discourse and real feel of the
great philosopher over an extended period. Thus, I paid much more attention
to the sections where Teodros discussed Rawls. [Teodros-1, Sec 23, Sec 25]
I was most intrigued how Teodros related the concept of “justice” as
foundational rights for distribution of privileges. In this regard I draw
comparisons and differences between Teodros’s treatment of Rawls and the
criticism of Rawls in an article by Professor Andreas Eshete [hereafter
Andreas], “Contractarianism and the Scope of Justice,” in Ethics, 85, 1
(October. 1974), 38-49. In discussing the views of Teodros and Andreas, I
have in mind also my own rather clumsy effort on Rawls in graduate school as
well. Of course, it will not be fair to compare or contrast brief synoptic
statements with Andreas’s full fledged critical analysis on an aspect of Rawls’s
idea of distributive difference principle.
I am bringing in the article by Andreas into focus in order to contrast the
views of Teodros even though he may seem to be inclined towards Marxist
thoughts to the Hegelian of Andreas. This is how Andreas framed the issue for
his criticism of Rawls: “Since the conception of justice is jointly defined by
the two principles, if the difference principle lacks invariance the conception
as a whole fails to capture an eternal perspective. The attraction of
contractarianism for social theory stems, in part, from the claim to eternality; I
hope to show that this source of the doctrine's attraction is illusory.”
What is interesting for me for the purpose of this review is why both
philosophers stressed or focused on the distributive rule (difference
principle) first and foremost as opposed to Rawls’s first principle on rights
that need be satisfied first in order to consider the second distributive
principle. In other words, the group or communal interest is given priority
over and above the rights of individuals. Does not this ground the subject of
democracy in a loop? Despite the fact that I am not sure whether the
introduction of “temporality” as a serious question by Andreas in discussing
the invariance of the difference principle is a valid one, for eternality can be a
difficult concept to resolve in context of any statement or assertion of
principle. [I hope my readers would realize that my criticism of Andreas is not
personal; as matter of fact, I admire his writing skill, his carful choice of
words, and his structure of meaning and context. It is his political and moral
commitment that I am appalled with that he could not muster the common
decency to see the harm and devastation Meles Zenawi has brought about on
Ethiopia in the last eighteen years.]
As far as I can tell, when Rawls discussed “eternality” he seems to be using the
concept of the eternal categorematically, whereas Andreas uses the term
“eternality” syncategorematically. On the other hand, considering the
literature of temporality or relativism, it seems to me there is a persistent
confusion between statements that are eternal in content as opposed to their
temporal structural expression—a difference in metaphor and metonymy.
Andreas’s discussion is forcefully ontological in the sense that it goes against
the stated statement of Rawls that his idea is simply hypothetical; thus, testing
it under the metaphysical issue of “being” with existence as measuring tool
simply miscasts the issue.
A far more interesting challenge to the “eternality” idea in Rawls is argued in
a small book by Professor William Soderberg [hereafter Soderberg] where
Soderberg saw the problem leading to the age old problem of heresy vs.
orthodoxy that would result, as it has done countless times in the past, in
some form of persecution.
“The ‘perspective from eternity,’ or Rawls’ cards-down perspective,
can pose a major problem: it can deteriorate into a tyranny of orthodoxy.
People may begin to argue over who is adopting the perspective and who is
not. When people claim to adopt the perspective, they are sometimes
subjected to proofs of fidelity and proofs of orthodoxy. Those unwilling to
adopt the timeless perspective—and who prefer to follow inclinations, for
example—may be viewed as infidels and on occasion may be subjected to
inquisition and persecution. Battles can break out over who is orthodox and
who is not.” [William Soderberg, The Game of Philosophy, University Press
of America , 2000, 57.]
My own preference is to think of the question of “eternality” as a non-question
or as a silly question; however, if pressed I would consider the question of
“eternality” as the eternal “present” that has no beginning and no end, or as
the ancient Greeks would have it that which cannot be traversed. From the
perspective of the individual—what other perspective can there be—eternality
as a subjective concept is a non-starter.
At any rate, I challenge both philosophers that the hierarchy they attempted to
edify with Hegel or Marx in the background should be revaluated, and the
hierarchy should be modified with the rights principle on top and the
difference principle as secondary or of much less importance. To put it in
ordinary language, I put spirituality first and material convenience second.
After all, what is uniquely human is our spirituality, for we share in our base
appetites what is true with all the animals and the beasts of the jungle.
There is no doubt in my mind that Teodros considers philosophy as
substantive, at least in its significance to the ongoing human discourse across
disciplines overcoming and transcending nominalistic limitations. What I find
surprising is the fact that there is no discussion of “cause and effect”
temporizing events as would in Hume. There is no recognition of the direction
of the arrow of time either. In simpler philosophical term, we are never safely
tucked and immune to all the pervasive process of decomposition or dealing
with the process of entropy. Needless to say, all principles dissolve with
increased entropy that also indicates that time is not just a state of mind but a
dimension of realty no matter how crudely understood by human beings.
I really do not give a hoot what individuals think in their private moments or
lives. I get involved out of concern when their philosophy affects social order
and the public good. Andreas’s view on the difference principle and the
maximization of privileges is shaped by his predetermined outlook on the role
of the individual in a community, formed already in his mind while young living
under trying circumstances (family situation) in an Ethiopian culture of the
1940s and 50s. The tragedy of Ethiopian current political situation, in the
main is due to such distortions and corruption of the individual in those
formative years. The radicalization of Ethiopian students in the 1960s is
reactionary to such extent that its focus being individual lives of the students
themselves even though the surface explanation and agitation is all about the
Ethiopian “Masses.”
If we reflect for a moment on the history of Imperial Ethiopia, we note that the
Emperor and his order of Government structure cannot be that easily
delaminated from the people of Ethiopia . The Ethiopian family structure was,
in fact, the target of rebellion by the students of the time. Ethiopian students
mainly fought for their own liberation from the tyranny of their fathers and the
family hierarchy, and not, as often claimed, for liberation of Ethiopia ’s
“masses,” to use a favorite term from the literature of the student movement of
the time. Such psychological Oedipus-complex in turn had a disastrous effect
on our Ethiopian political life to this date. In a way, Messay Kebede had
discussed such a process in his outstanding book: Messay
Kebede, Radicalism and Cultural Dislocation in Ethiopia, 1960 – 1974,
Rochester , NY : Rochester University Press, 2008. [hereafter “Messay”]
In December of 2008, I wrote in my consolidated book review and
commentary of Messay’s book that summarized Messay’s primary points,
which are often provocative because they go against the grain of accepted
evaluations of the Ethiopian student movement. The question he raised and
answered dealt with how the question of psychology vs. historical dialectics
resulted in a distorted revolution. Messay contend that the student movement
was not a consequence of economic hardship, but a movement born out of
social alienation due to the education bubble created by Haile Selassie’s
education policy. [Messay, 48-49, 95-97]. Furthermore, he contended that
the radicalization of Ethiopian students was not due to rational or dialectical
process but psychological of deeply felt feeling of guilt for rebelling against
inapt “fathers.” [Messay, 143-154, 165-186] To me that bubble is simply an
accidental setup, but the revolt of students and citizens alike was and still is
against the authoritative father figure, the Oedipus complex (symbolized by the
Emperor then, and every leader hence). Teodros did not try to explain the
cause of social discontent resulting in political rebellion in terms political forces.
Unlike Teodros, Andreas is a truly tragic figure because of his weakness in
accepting the patronage of Meles Zenawi, the current Ethiopian Government,
in his appointment as President of the University of Addis Ababa . What
a loss of talent in Andreas’s choice of work, for he betrayed his academic
calling for an administrative profession for which he is badly prepared. The
depth of loathing even by élites, including his contemporaries, is terrible. Any
association with Meles Zenawi continues to be a kiss of death. By contrast,
Teodros remained committed to philosophy, to the love of wisdom, and has
produced numerous articles and several books that definitely benefit his fellow
man. Along with Messay Kebede, Teodros is the great Ethiopian scholar
who is productive and nurturing to all.
V. Elitism, Ethnicism, Federalism, and Social Consciousness
I apologize to my readers for this section for I have expanded it to include
what may look unrelated subject, but in fact is. In order to understand the
ramification of elitism in the Ethiopian context and how it had affected our
lives/ethos, I have taken to task as my point of diversion Professor Andreas’s
work. By his own admission, Andreas was one of the most influential voices
that brought about the current “Federal” structure of the State of Ethiopia
thereby causing the ever deepening fractures across ethnic lines of Ethiopian
communities. In an interview with Callaloo, Volume 33, Number 1, Winter
(2010), (102-116), Andreas affirmed his involvement in the incorporation
of “a federal” state structure for Ethiopia in the 1995 Constitution. Who could
defy and challenge what could only be described as the avalanche
of graduates of Yale University including Fasil Nahum, the drafter of the 1995
Constitution, who were giving credibility to Meles Zenawi and his
supporters in the EPRDF undermining all those who had far more unifying
programs for the battered nation of Ethiopia ?
Here is an extract from the incredulous interview of Andreas Eshete published
in Callaloo, Volume 33, Number 1, Winter (2010):
“WOUBSHET: You’ve argued that federalism is the most viable option for
governing and holding together Ethiopia . Philosophically and historically, why
is federalism the better constitutional option for Ethiopia and Ethiopians?
ESHETE: I think there are both reasons of history and reasons of theory if you
like—practical theory—why this is important. The reasons of history are of
course the fact that there were millions of Ethiopians who were completely
marginalized, who didn’t feel they were Ethiopians or who felt they could not
be Ethiopians unless they gave up their own identity, hid it, or withheld it.
So federalism of course got rid of this necessity. It also made all religions,
all cultural communities in Ethiopia , equal and sovereign. So Ethiopia now is
going to be a free union of these sovereign peoples who now could retain their
identity while becoming full-fledged Ethiopians and in fact the makers and
sovereign architects of the new Ethiopia .”
Andreas is living in a dream world, a few months back he declared that he is
still a socialist. Such is his anachronistic view: “So I am still a socialist and
socialism still has a future for good reasons. I don’t gloat at the failure of
capitalism, but I do enjoy the idea that what is supposed to be the enduring
according to our Western friends, the enduring social form, the only one that
fits our best theoretical knowledge and our best views about evolution, is not
working.” It is hypocrisy of the worst kind for anyone who is greatly
benefiting from a brutal dictatorial Government to be speaking of socialism let
alone federalism. But that is exactly what Andreas is doing. The ongoing
celebration of federalism in Ethiopia, which coincided with the 5th
International Conference on Federalism that opened on December 14 at the
UN Conference Center in Addis Ababa, is a show to behold on the folly of
egotistical leaders, who have butchered innocent people, and even some
accused of genocide and at least one indicted by the International Criminal
Court, congratulating each other for a system that had not been implemented
anywhere but used as an excuse to divide and rule citizens of such victim
countries. Those same people at the Celebration are the dispossessed of
millions of hectares of their fertile land by Meles Zenawi and their land leased
out for a century.
The “Federalism” that both Andreas and Fasil are talking about is the worst
kind and the most primitive type, for it is based on ethnicism and racism that
totally undermines and subordinates all individual fundamental rights to the
ethnic group rights. Ethnicism is the single most destructive tool in the
ongoing balkanization of Ethiopia and its ultimate destruction of Ethiopia . It
was absolutely irresponsible of Fasil and collaborators to have given a cover to
Meles Zenawi to pursue his anti-Ethiopia destructive program in the guise of
Federalism. It is disconcerting if not unhinging to hear Fasil Nahum talks
about the virtue of ethnic based “federalism” in Ethiopia as a program to
saving Ethiopia from disintegration in 1991. Such talk coming from Fasil
Nahum is Kafkaesque in the extreme. He claimed, in a video interview with
Walta of a couple of days ago, that there never was an Ethiopian government
that respected human rights as the current Government of Meles Zenawi. Such
are the statements of shameful lies of dishonorable men of learning. Or is this
inexcusable stupidity or naiveté?
Rather than pontificating about the “feudalism” of traditional Ethiopia , in
trying to discredit Ethiopia ’s tradition and great Emperors, if Fasil had paid
some attention to his scholarship, he would have realized that the concept of
“Federalism” is not something new for Ethiopian rulers, for most of our history
the “King of Kings” presided over autonomous territories governed by local
leaders. It was only during Haile Selassie’s reign that serious centralization
took place with some success. Traditional Ethiopia was not like feudal Europe
One must really be careful in making generalized statements about historical
Ethiopian system of governments.
Fasil Nahum is a man who served Mengistu Hailemariam as an insider and
close collaborator, and he used to sing the same kind of song he is now belting
out trying to convince Ethiopians about the virtue of the “Federalism” of Meles
Zenawi’s regime as he had done for Mengistu’s regime and his 1984
Constitution. Fasil is not even an Ethiopian by ethnicity, if we use his own
criteria of testing for the identity of individuals: he is an Eritrean on his mother’s
side and a Jew on his father’s side. Now, he has continued to lead his charmed
chameleon life hurting Ethiopians once again collaborating with another brutal
and savage leader and his Government that has committed large scale murder,
incarceration of tens of thousands of people, and is still torturing and
detaining Ethiopians as we speak. Such people also tried to portray the
opposition as anti ethnic groups, which is an absurdity, for the opposition is
far more supportive of individual rights which is the very base of ethnic
identity. That approach is far more authentic and respect all Ethiopians
without having to label them like caged animals.
There is also another serious error that is often glossed over by most people
who claim that only a federal structure would insure the ethnic equality of the
diverse “Poeples” of Ethiopians. This form of claim is based on false premises
because it seems to equate the humanness of an individual with the culture of
that individual. It confuses ethnic identity with the fundamental human rights
a human being innately has irrespective of race, ethnicity, skin color, or
gender. The over emphasis of ethnicity in the Ethiopian version of federalism
has at its base the notion of cultural equality as its foundation. It is
perceived by many supporters of “ethnic federalism” as the basis of all human
rights. This is where the fallacy starts. Human beings are ends whereas culture
is a means to an end, thus culture cannot be equated in any form with the
foundational rights attributable to the individual nor can it be placed above or
equal to such individual rights.
Whether it is Andreas or anybody else who is collaborating with the current
Government of Meles Zenawi is selling his or her soul to the Devil. Such
individual is walking on stilts. He or she is the quintessential elitist who is
floating high above everyone, never engaging anyone unless one has political or
financial power or is from an elite school or thereabout—a true deformity of
character—that ought to be evaluated for the degree of harm he may have
caused Ethiopia. By contrast Teodros has repeatedly written challenging the
ethnic based federalism of the current Ethiopian Government and Ethiopian
State structure. [Teodros-2, 207-218] The concern of intellectuals, the likes of
Andreas and Fasil, is the structuring of power; if they speak of the people of
Ethiopia , it is in terms of words like the “masses” that is an undifferentiated
blob, incidental to their main goal of acquisition of power or serving such a
god. Without doubt the people of Ethiopia are the main concern of Teodros.
For example, Teodros devoted over fifty pages, almost a third of his book to
the problem of famine in Africa in general and in Ethiopia in particular.
[Teodros-2, 108-150] Rather than declaring that he is still a socialist or some
such hypocrisy/thing, Teodros came up with a creative solution that does not
bow down to either socialism or capitalism. He called his system of economy
the “moral economy” and offered it as an alternative system to both capitalism
and socialism. [Teodros-2, 113-121] The concept of “moral economy,”
Teodros tells us, is based on the Pharonic Maat, which fact grounds that
concept in our African Continent.
We see often in Ethiopian intellectuals, especially in those who were born in
Addis Ababa or vicinity, such pronounced and incapacitating elitist attitude
that has infected even those that are of recent vintage who lived most of their
lives in foreign lands. The blocking off or alienation of Ethiopians outside of
that pernicious group even in the arts is quite comical, if it were not
devastating to our unity. The recent production in Callaloo, Volume 33,
Number 1, Winter 2010 on the state of the arts in Ethiopia is such a
disappointing attempt of elevation of few individuals by whom Ethiopian art
and artists are to be measured. The individuals involved in that project are
painfully green, and yet they set themselves arrogantly as arbiters and as
paragons of virtue as standard and trend setters for the arts in Ethiopia .
As expected, in Callaloo painters Gebrekiristos Desta and Skunder Boghasian
are edified as pioneers in developing the Arts in Ethiopia . Afework Tekle is
noticeably absent in that name dropping in Callaloo. As a matter of fact, I
believe the two painters Gebrekiristos Desta and Skunder Boghasian, from a
certain perspective had hindered the development of home-grown painting/art
form by distorting the normal flow of creative impulses of young aspiring
Ethiopians by subordinating such minds to their hyphenated art forms in full
imitation of Western modernist paintings. The awarding of the Haile Selassie I
Prize to such painters was a mistake. At any rate, the value of art as a
reflection or expression of ones own culture need not be recognized through
awards and accolades, for it is forceful enough to impose itself on society.
Once upon a time I was also an aspiring painter with plenty of native talent. I
stopped painting because I realized that to survive as an artist in the West
after I relocated my venue, I had to imitate the cultural trends of the society
and produce art works that embodied the pictorial sensibilities of the West, its
style, theme, execution, even philosophy. I chose to remain authentic and
stopped painting altogether and shifted my creative energy to reading and
writing.
I understand intimately the mind of the artist, his sacrifices and aspirations
far more accurately than any of the imitators and cultural vandals and
mercenaries. It is a misunderstanding to think of Ethiopian traditional art
form anything but abstract. What could be more abstract than the
non-representational supra-natural art form of Ethiopia whether it is expressed
in religious thematic form or in secular decorative art expressed in all kinds
of utensils, clothing, hair style, food presentations et cetera. Thus the issue
per se is not the so called “modern” art form but the authenticity and respect
to ones own cultural heritage. Every Ethiopian who grew up in our Ethiopian
culture but reinvent himself as some form of modernist in the style of Western
studio based trained painter is a charlatan and a fake.
In my couple of decades of close scrutiny of the lives of our intellectuals what
I have discovered is the fact that Teodros is the least elitist intellectual.
Teodros wrote several articles wherein it was clear that he was inviting all to
participate in scholarly discourse. He instigated discourses on topics as varied
as the choices for Ethiopia ’s future systems of government, the ethical and
moral issues involving famine et cetera. Almost none responded to his noble
effort. I find such absence of interest, or even worse, neglect, unacceptable.
For example, the individuals involved in the Callaloo fiasco did not even
bother to contact such distinguished scholar like Teodros, but limited
themselves to their incestuous relationships of their groupies both here in the
United States and in Addis Ababa .
Attending an Ivy League school need not be used as a measure of distinction,
after all it is not our Ivy League, and such distinction is not our attribute
either. Teodros knows who he is and writes affirming his identity as an
Ethiopian. He is very comfortable as an Ethiopian unlike a number of Ethiopian
scholars who seem to be in perpetual search for an identity. There is no need
to seek for some identity in any culture, even more so in a culture that has as
its base slavery or minority subculture. After all we never had been anybody’s
slave or colony. It is tragic that elitist Ethiopians in the forefront writing
on Ethiopian art are such individuals who seem to be in total awe of such
subcultures and look down at our own world class culture that they hardly give
attention to or know about. The pursuit of “modernity” since the time of
Emperor Minilik II and in full throttle during the fifty years reign of Emperor
Haile Selassie resulted in distorting and corrupting our cultural identity.
Those transitory migrant Ethiopians from the margins of our Ethiopian social
structure totally succumbed to such influences and paid back our main stream
society with contempt and disdain of our great culture. Their aspiration for
some other cultural outlet is understandable by taking into account the
development of all pseudo cultures from main stream cultures. There is
literally nothing we need in terms of culture from the outside world. We are a
universe to ourselves. If at all the opposite is true. Rather than seeking to
affirm Ethiopia ’s indigenous cultural achievement, our elites try to find
validation in some other cultures and subcultures. What is the relevance of
Jazz or a Jackson Pollock dripping to us that we are supposed to pursue as
some kind of talisman?
The assertion by quite a number of art critics and art historians that art is a
universal language is a very shallow and pedantic idea. In case of the United
States , the type of art criticism that promoted abstract expressionism or
“modern art” in general was as fake as the works thus promoted by the likes of
Clement Greenberg, a CIA hired-gun paid to counter Soviet proletariat art
form. Art is a far complex endeavor of human beings that is often very
subjective and also subjectively appreciated in context of ones culture and life
conditions at a given time. The universalization of any art form is truly very
simplistic. I wrote this particular point just to remind people that even in main
stream America what goes as “Modern Art” is infested with lies and human
frivolity.
One must not forget that the arts in general are considered by biologists, for
example, as non-adoptive changes/activities in human evolution—in other
words, of very little intrinsic value to mankind. Of course, it will be foolish to
think of the creative process and the culture of artistic production as totally
solipsistic. If only such hyphenated Ethiopians know the greatness of the core
cultures of Ethiopia that are still intact in Lasta-Wag, Debre Tabor, Menz,
Amara-Sa’int et cetera they will cut off symbolically their feet that led them
astray. We can still start to rebuild from there and restart the whole
experiment from the source of our great civilization and sink “modernity” with
all its hyphenated sellouts and with all its alien and corrupted subculture.
Messay Kebede’s admonishment is on point on our tragic lose of our identity
due to our disassociation from our core culture because of a distorted
approach in using modern education system that replaced or supplanted our
Orthodox Church based education. Here is where one facet of the academic
lives of scholars like Messay and Teodros could/should intersect where great
collaborative work could result in books of immense value to all of us.
More than any other Ethiopian intellectual, Teodros has extended on several
occasions his invitations, through his several articles, for discourse with any
Ethiopian. A few may have taken him up in his offer. However, what is tragic is
that his peers, Ethiopians in academia, had not responded to his calls. It is
tragic that the affectations and the vanity that many Ethiopians in academia
suffer seem to be incurable. Speaking of Teodros, even his recent books in
their totality are a form of invitation for discourse. Teodros is not only a
brilliant and hard working philosopher but also a person who has humility and
genuine respect of his fellow man. He has the great depth of personality to
know that no one person has a monopoly on knowledge or wisdom and that
through discourse and dialogue much can be achieved.
VI. Moral Economy and Conclusion
My criticism of Andreas is not an attack on “Shoa Amharas,” as few would
jump to such conclusions as was the case in the past. First of all Endreas is not
a “Shoa Amhara” even though he grew up in a decent household of Amharas
in Addis Ababa . Another fact that should be taken into account is the
fact that I have been often accused falsely by ill-informed or ignoramus
bloggers, of drafting or designing the setup of the “Federal” structure even
though I had already left the country and never dealt with the 1995
Constitution drafting Commission headed by Kifle Wodajo. Although Kifle
Wodajo, for whom I had great admiration for his diplomatic abilities and
sublime writing skills, was my boss at one point in the early 1970s, I will not
mince words now in my criticism when I consider his activities as the
Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Commission. He betrayed the Ethiopian
people and the State of Ethiopia and its history heading a Commission that is
instrumental in the destruction of Ethiopia . I have never supported federalism
based on ethnicism or on language for Ethiopia . I believe in a “Unitary”
system with local autonomous provincial administration and with incorporated
urban structures as needed.
The fact remains that a handful of Ethiopian Yale graduates created the
disastrous socio-political experiment and not some people from Harvard. I
too, along with very many Ethiopians, wrongly had blamed Samuel P.
Huntington from Harvard for the type of “Federalism” as practiced in
Ethiopia . However, recently published material vindicates Huntington , for he
had warned Meles Zenawi and his Government the risk of basing a political
structure on ethnicism. Endreas, Fasil, Meles and Sebhat on the first ring and
sycophants the likes of Seyoum Mesfin and the Members of the Central
Committee of the TPLF in toto as second fiddles were responsible for the
Federal structure adopted in the Constitution. To some extent, the career
oriented go-betweens, the likes of Addisu Legesse, Dawit Yohannes, Kassu
Illala et cetera helped the establishment of the current federal structure that is
tearing Ethiopia apart.
It is quite unusual to see in the history of any nation that its successive
leaders have some psychological incapacitating problem of being bastards, or
too short, or too ethnic, or too illiterate, or too rustic, or too fearful, or
too banda et cetera. One may naively think that such features are irrelevant to
the determination of good leadership. But such holistic assessment of leaders is
necessary in order to appreciate the intricacies of what goes in to constituting
a person—even the size of ones fingers matters, and in case of a woman some
such physical attribute. Everything about a person has some role in shaping that
person. Leaders are no exception to that universal human becoming. Every
Ethiopian leader for the last one hundred fifty years had some such problem.
As I stated above, Teodros came up with a wonderful concept to counter the
human degradation due to lack of resources and diminished productivity in
Ethiopia. He called his system “moral economy” and offered it as
an alternative system to both capitalism and socialism. [Teodros-2, 113-121]
It is not a situation where we have discourse and dialogue between Ethiopian
academicians except for the biannual get together of the Ethiopian Studies
conferences. But that is not discourse or dialogue but a form for those who
seek to preach from a rarefied pulpit.
It is not an exaggeration when I state that there is much animosity and hate in
the lives of Ethiopians, especially in the political lives of Ethiopians back
home and/or in the Diaspora. Teodros’s essays are like a breath of fresh and
clean air wafting down the stale and stinking writings of bloggers and
chat-room intellectuals and those who write ad nauseam with a single theme of
“I hate Tigrayans or Woyanes,” in hundreds of variations. Writing in the best
interest of the public without biases or prejudices is a mark of a wise person,
but it requires also moral courage and excellent academic training and native
intelligence.
Raw ego/libido won’t work in turning what is essentially a rustic and vulgar
brain into something that is wise no matter how often and how long one writes.
An objective, intelligent, and polite manner of writing is not an easy task to
carry out consistently and as successfully as Teodros has done over the years
to date. Especially considering the fact that he spent his productive years as
an exile during the brutal government of Mengistu Hailemariam and after, and
yet maintaining that level of integrity is by itself a monumental achievement.
Professor Teodros, thank you for two marvelous and educational books, and
thank you also for all your countless articles and commentaries. Ω
Tecola W. Hagos
Washington DC
16 December, 2010 | Tecola Worq Hagos
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
“And the impulse to write is almost always fired by reading.
Reading, the loveof reading, is what makes you dream of becoming a
writer. And long after you’vebecome a writer, reading books others
write – and rereading the beloved books ofthe past – constitutes an
irresistible distraction from writing.” Susan Sontag
I. Introduction
Professor Teodros Kiros [hereafter “Teodros”] is a well established
personality in our Ethiopian Diaspora community (political life) due to his
exemplary hard work and commitment to our political and social struggles. In
several of his outstanding books, numerous essays and articles, we are
privileged to learn about ourselves, about our struggle, and about our hopes
and aspirations. Teodros is no charlatan trying his hand in this or that, but a
well educated, brilliant, and socially conscious individual. He received his B.A.
at University of Wisconsin and his Ph.D. in Political Philosophy at Kent State
University . The following two books (under review) are his most recent
contribution to our Ethiopian discourse: Teodros Kiros, Philosophical Essays,
Trenton , NJ : The Red Sea Press, 2011. [Teodros-1]; Teodros Kiros,
Ethiopian Discourse, Trenton , NJ : The Red Sea Press, 2011. [Teodros-2]
In fact, Teodros’s sphere of involvement and influence is much wider than our
own Ethiopian locality. He devoted all of his adult life in reminding us that
there is a much higher plane to all our political and social involvements. To
wit here are some of his outstanding books you all might want to explore: 1)
Zara Yacob, A seventeenth Century Rationalist: Philosopher of the Rationality
of the Human Heart, The Red Sea Press, 2005; 2) Self-Construction and the
Formation of Human Values: Truth, Language, and Desire, Praeger
Paperback, 2001; 3) Explorations In African Political Thought, Routledge,
2001; 4) Moral Philosophy & Development: The Human Condition in Africa,
Ohio University Press, 1992.
I am tempted to ask what motivates Teodros to write with such depth and
scope on a subject that seems, on the surface, contingent to a fruitful academic
life. To a great extent, Teodros has answered that question where he stated, “I
write because writing is my vocation. I enjoy it. But joy is not the only reason. I
write because I consider myself a responsible citizen of the Ethiopia that I love
from the depth of my veins. I do not write to please the public; if I did, my life
would be so different. To the extent that I can, I try to write truthfully at all
times, although that habit will not make me ‘the person of the year’ or even
lead me to the right job.” [Teodros-2, p231] If we seek one word to draw as
identification adjective to tag on Teodros, the word most appropriate to use
would be “courageous.”
What is not published as often as his writings is about Teodros’s commitment
to academic life and his exceptional contribution in the field of continental
philosophy and ethics from a trajectory that is unique. His views on human
endeavor are often interwoven in books and essays dealing with pressing social
and economic issues. All of his books deal with economic and social issues
(ethics and philosophy). Most of his writing is involved with the interpretation
of principles and norms and in relating factual matters to such principles and
norms. It is in this context of critical thinking or hermeneutics that I chose to
review his recent books.
Both books under review are compilation of a series of essays and
commentaries he wrote and published over a period of time. Theodros-1
seems to be more thematically focused than Teodros-2. Teodros-2 is eclectic
in the range of subjects discussed over a period of over ten years. Thus, in
reading the books under review one cannot help but feel revisiting known
terrine of ideas. Nevertheless, there is a degree of novelty in the book-matrix
that it is worth our effort to devote time to read these very important books.
By way of reassuring all of my readers that there is nothing wrong in collected
materials i.e., individual articles in a book form, to be part of our book
collections, for references and occasional refreshing reading. I direct your
attention to an outstanding article on the virtue (“sin” in the author’s
own word) of rereading as expounded beyond the pale by David Gate in his
beautifully and passionately crafted article “Now, Read it Again” of June 27,
2009, in Newsweek. “I'm always rereading …The simple answer is that they
give me joy. They fill me with the voices of people I know, thousands of
them—many times the number in that old Dickens print—the real and the
imagined, the living and the dead. Heaven may be like this eventually, but why
wait around when it's right here, right now?”
II. The Case of Philosopher Zera Yacob
There are some serious questions that need be answered satisfactorily about
the translation into English of the Hatetat of Zera Yacob by Professor Claude
Sumner. The treatise of Zärʾa Yaʻe̳qob and of Wäldä Ḥe̳yw·at, was first
printed in 1976. In the book, there is no one named translator, but that of the
name of Claude Sumner is stated as the author. Sumner has no knowledge of
Geez to qualify him as translator of such work. That fact has casted a dark
shadow on the authenticity and credibility of the translation as presented by
Sumner. This means that any writing based on such translation is also
challenged because its referential book is challenged.
An Ethiopian scholar wrote some times back that “Sumner proved that the
author of the Treatise was not an Italian Capuchin Giusto d'Urbino, who lived
in Ethiopia in the 19th century; Giusto d'Urbino himself never said the work
was his own but told that he had bought the manuscript.” That is well
and good but it still remains for us to have a verifiable translation. It is not to
discredit the voluminous work and devotion of Sumner to Ethiopia and its
people that I am questioning the quality and authenticity of the translation of
ZeraYacob’s great philosophical work, but to ensure that we pass to the next
generation authenticated documents. Are we dealing here with the copy that
was acquired by d’Urbino or some other version? Where is the original Geez
version that was the basis for the translated work of Sumner? The problem of
authenticity and proper inclusion of unnamed and shadowy Ethiopian
translators as “Translators” in very many books/works by foreigners on
Ethiopia is the single most serious and persisting defect that need be corrected.
It is obvious that Teodros adores Zera Yacob, the seventeenth century
philosopher par excellance. [Teodros-2, 36-50] It is heart warming to read a
serious scholar devoting his time and intellect to elucidate and explain an
Ethiopian Philosopher that some consider the equal of Descartes, if not his
superior intellectual brother. Teodros poured his heart and soul in his book on
Zera Yacob: Zara Yacob, A seventeenth Century Rationalist: Philosopher of
the Rationality of the Human Heart, The Red Sea Press, 2005. It is with great
emotional difficulty that I discount the value of Teodros’s book on Zera Yacob
completely. This has nothing to do with the quality of the analysis or the
presentation of the ideas and arguments by Teodros if we assume the
translation is a legitimate one and could be verified from the original Geez. The
problem is with the translation work of Sumner. We have no way of verifying
what is claimed to be a translation. We do not know who translated the Geez
into English. For sure it is not Sumner for he could hardly find his way even in
Amharic let alone Geez. We need to have the copy of the original Geez
side by side with any translation so that there could be possible verification
and testing for accuracy.
An entire field of philosophical enquiry has developed from such initial
concerns about the accuracy of translations and the appropriateness of
interpretations of biblical texts (medieval and early medieval works). Over a
period of time such rigorous discipline took a life of its own and developed
into a discipline called hermeneutics. Other than the serious technical
difficulties that would deteriorate and affect the substance of the original
book, there are also exaggerated claims that Zera Yacob’s writing has
somehow contributed to “the development of African philosophy.” One must
be careful in making such claims. The first question that comes to mind is the
question of publication and wide distribution of Zara Yacob’s work for it to
have some such impact. The second question has to do with the existence of
an “African philosophy” in the sense of categories or types of philosophies.
Both concerns/questions are very difficult to address in a definitive manner.
In this book review and miscellaneous comments I am not pouring cold water
on a passionate expose of a philosopher by being highly critical of the
translation/authorship of Sumner, but rather I am concerned in the verification
and authenticity of the work of the Zera Yacob as presented in translation in
English with no way of checking on the quality of the translation. I would
offer a compromise in rehabilitating the works of Zera Yacob by suggesting
that there be constituted a panel of experts in Geez to translate the work of
ZeraYacob. But first, what must be done now is to have the original Geez
writing verified by experts and submit the same to a body of qualified Geez
scholars from Ethiopia . Ethiopian Orthodox Church scholars must be
represented in such a panel of experts. At any rate, in private communication,
Teodros has assured me that he has the Geez version of Zera Yacob’s
work in his collections. It is very reassuring and calming to know that. It may
be the case that the book and articles written by Teodros may well be
vindicated for being based then on a text that is legitimated and authenticated.
The first step in that direction is to publish Zera Yacob in his original Geez.
III. Democracy: Greeks v. the Rest
A number of Ethiopians in the Diaspora talk or write about “democracy” with
such intensity that they may give to an outsider the impression that they may be
worshiping some god called “democracy.” The irony is that we Ethiopians in
general are not democratic as individuals or as a community. We are much
more militaristic and hierarchical than we imagine. However intensely we bring
up the subject of democracy in most of our discourses, it is yet mostly
superficial and has no firm grounding in the lives of those of us who
incessantly talk or write about democracy. One great exception may well be
Teodros who is consistently devoted to the democratic model. Having said
that, I should mention some disagreements I have with Teodros in the history
of the development of “democracy.” Teodros concentrated on Plato and
Aristotle in discussing democracy. [Teodros-1, ppxxi-xxiv, 1-19] It seems to
me that is a choice of personalities rather than fact based reflection. It is a
curious choice for Teodros to associate democratic political ideas with Plato or
Aristotle unless we equate rationalism with democracy.
I am quite sure from historical records that Cleisthenes is the one person
credited to have reorganized Athenian society into a system that is the
precursor of a representative democratic political structure. Especially
considering the fact that Cleisthenes was from a powerful aristocratic family
in power, it was a great achievement then moving an aristocratic land based
power structure into some form of a representative political structure. This
must be considered in stark contrast to Plato who was in support of an elitist
political hierarchy rigidly structured by class that resembled a caste system.
Aristotle favored too an aristocracy. Neither philosopher could be considered
a democratic thinker. It is clear, for example from the Apology of Plato that the
statement of Socrates was not in any way indicative of any ideation of
democracy. Socrates was accused of corrupting the youth of Athens, in
essence euphemistically speaking for corrupting the then existing system of
government, which was a democratic one that had lapsed momentarily into a
dictatorship. The injustice Socrates suffered does not in anyway transform him
into a democratic thinker. He was all his life against the common man, an elitist
in his ideology and a sophist in his method of argument.
There is the possibility that I might have misread the trajectory that Teodros
grounded his perception/evaluation in according prominent places to Plato and
Aristotle on the subject of democracy. To me both philosophers were
detractors rather than promoters of “democracy” as a system of government.
At any rate, Teodros explained to us that the democratic form or structure
of a society is not uniquely Western but also practiced all over the world at
one point in past human history. This is all true, because it is supported by
anthropological and sociological studies and findings by numerous experts and
researchers.
Teodros is not a rigid or inflexible thinker. He adjusts his ideas with flow of
time that reflects his constantly evolving mind. There is nothing more
satisfying to see a man of great talent constantly struggling to perfect his craft
and his ideas changing and adjusting his conclusions as a result of critical self
examination and honesty. I quote here a very illustrative statement by Lewis
Gordon in his Preface to Teodros-1, “In writing to his Ethiopian sisters and
brothers with the call to critical reflection on democratic participation and
justice through drawing upon their creative resources and reflective judgment,
Kiros is engaging in that radical reflective spirit of universalizing praxis. In this
sense, in all his homes—in Ethiopian and North American thought—he
exemplifies the value of fearless speech, and in so doing, speaks to us all.”
IV. Contractarians and the Birth of Modern (Liberal) Democracy
Even with all the pitfalls in generalizing a complex people and with the risk of
drawing a simplified identification, I do not think of us Ethiopians as uniquely
African, for we are foremost Ethiopians, an identity forged by thousands of
years of pounding by the hammer and anvil of history shaped into a tempered
distinct people (singular). Teodros’s discussion of our current political
situation and thinking is grounded in the works of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau,
Hume, and Madison. This part of his work constitutes the first half of his
entire book. [Teodros-1, 21-54]. The core ideas of those philosophers as
expounded by Teodros suggest that they were not all cut from the same
philosophy-cloth. True, all of them seem to be contractarians, but that is the
extent of their similarity. For example, Hobbes thinks that man in the state of
nature is beastly, whereas for Rousseau man in nature is at his natural best and
that it is civil society that is responsible for all individual deformities.
Teodros admires Rawls, which is wonderful. I had also the good fortune of
meeting Rawls at Harvard. I met him at a time when he looked emaciated in his
declining health, but Teodros had a meaningful discourse and real feel of the
great philosopher over an extended period. Thus, I paid much more attention
to the sections where Teodros discussed Rawls. [Teodros-1, Sec 23, Sec 25]
I was most intrigued how Teodros related the concept of “justice” as
foundational rights for distribution of privileges. In this regard I draw
comparisons and differences between Teodros’s treatment of Rawls and the
criticism of Rawls in an article by Professor Andreas Eshete [hereafter
Andreas], “Contractarianism and the Scope of Justice,” in Ethics, 85, 1
(October. 1974), 38-49. In discussing the views of Teodros and Andreas, I
have in mind also my own rather clumsy effort on Rawls in graduate school as
well. Of course, it will not be fair to compare or contrast brief synoptic
statements with Andreas’s full fledged critical analysis on an aspect of Rawls’s
idea of distributive difference principle.
I am bringing in the article by Andreas into focus in order to contrast the
views of Teodros even though he may seem to be inclined towards Marxist
thoughts to the Hegelian of Andreas. This is how Andreas framed the issue for
his criticism of Rawls: “Since the conception of justice is jointly defined by
the two principles, if the difference principle lacks invariance the conception
as a whole fails to capture an eternal perspective. The attraction of
contractarianism for social theory stems, in part, from the claim to eternality; I
hope to show that this source of the doctrine's attraction is illusory.”
What is interesting for me for the purpose of this review is why both
philosophers stressed or focused on the distributive rule (difference
principle) first and foremost as opposed to Rawls’s first principle on rights
that need be satisfied first in order to consider the second distributive
principle. In other words, the group or communal interest is given priority
over and above the rights of individuals. Does not this ground the subject of
democracy in a loop? Despite the fact that I am not sure whether the
introduction of “temporality” as a serious question by Andreas in discussing
the invariance of the difference principle is a valid one, for eternality can be a
difficult concept to resolve in context of any statement or assertion of
principle. [I hope my readers would realize that my criticism of Andreas is not
personal; as matter of fact, I admire his writing skill, his carful choice of
words, and his structure of meaning and context. It is his political and moral
commitment that I am appalled with that he could not muster the common
decency to see the harm and devastation Meles Zenawi has brought about on
Ethiopia in the last eighteen years.]
As far as I can tell, when Rawls discussed “eternality” he seems to be using the
concept of the eternal categorematically, whereas Andreas uses the term
“eternality” syncategorematically. On the other hand, considering the
literature of temporality or relativism, it seems to me there is a persistent
confusion between statements that are eternal in content as opposed to their
temporal structural expression—a difference in metaphor and metonymy.
Andreas’s discussion is forcefully ontological in the sense that it goes against
the stated statement of Rawls that his idea is simply hypothetical; thus, testing
it under the metaphysical issue of “being” with existence as measuring tool
simply miscasts the issue.
A far more interesting challenge to the “eternality” idea in Rawls is argued in
a small book by Professor William Soderberg [hereafter Soderberg] where
Soderberg saw the problem leading to the age old problem of heresy vs.
orthodoxy that would result, as it has done countless times in the past, in
some form of persecution.
“The ‘perspective from eternity,’ or Rawls’ cards-down perspective,
can pose a major problem: it can deteriorate into a tyranny of orthodoxy.
People may begin to argue over who is adopting the perspective and who is
not. When people claim to adopt the perspective, they are sometimes
subjected to proofs of fidelity and proofs of orthodoxy. Those unwilling to
adopt the timeless perspective—and who prefer to follow inclinations, for
example—may be viewed as infidels and on occasion may be subjected to
inquisition and persecution. Battles can break out over who is orthodox and
who is not.” [William Soderberg, The Game of Philosophy, University Press
of America , 2000, 57.]
My own preference is to think of the question of “eternality” as a non-question
or as a silly question; however, if pressed I would consider the question of
“eternality” as the eternal “present” that has no beginning and no end, or as
the ancient Greeks would have it that which cannot be traversed. From the
perspective of the individual—what other perspective can there be—eternality
as a subjective concept is a non-starter.
At any rate, I challenge both philosophers that the hierarchy they attempted to
edify with Hegel or Marx in the background should be revaluated, and the
hierarchy should be modified with the rights principle on top and the
difference principle as secondary or of much less importance. To put it in
ordinary language, I put spirituality first and material convenience second.
After all, what is uniquely human is our spirituality, for we share in our base
appetites what is true with all the animals and the beasts of the jungle.
There is no doubt in my mind that Teodros considers philosophy as
substantive, at least in its significance to the ongoing human discourse across
disciplines overcoming and transcending nominalistic limitations. What I find
surprising is the fact that there is no discussion of “cause and effect”
temporizing events as would in Hume. There is no recognition of the direction
of the arrow of time either. In simpler philosophical term, we are never safely
tucked and immune to all the pervasive process of decomposition or dealing
with the process of entropy. Needless to say, all principles dissolve with
increased entropy that also indicates that time is not just a state of mind but a
dimension of realty no matter how crudely understood by human beings.
I really do not give a hoot what individuals think in their private moments or
lives. I get involved out of concern when their philosophy affects social order
and the public good. Andreas’s view on the difference principle and the
maximization of privileges is shaped by his predetermined outlook on the role
of the individual in a community, formed already in his mind while young living
under trying circumstances (family situation) in an Ethiopian culture of the
1940s and 50s. The tragedy of Ethiopian current political situation, in the
main is due to such distortions and corruption of the individual in those
formative years. The radicalization of Ethiopian students in the 1960s is
reactionary to such extent that its focus being individual lives of the students
themselves even though the surface explanation and agitation is all about the
Ethiopian “Masses.”
If we reflect for a moment on the history of Imperial Ethiopia, we note that the
Emperor and his order of Government structure cannot be that easily
delaminated from the people of Ethiopia . The Ethiopian family structure was,
in fact, the target of rebellion by the students of the time. Ethiopian students
mainly fought for their own liberation from the tyranny of their fathers and the
family hierarchy, and not, as often claimed, for liberation of Ethiopia ’s
“masses,” to use a favorite term from the literature of the student movement of
the time. Such psychological Oedipus-complex in turn had a disastrous effect
on our Ethiopian political life to this date. In a way, Messay Kebede had
discussed such a process in his outstanding book: Messay
Kebede, Radicalism and Cultural Dislocation in Ethiopia, 1960 – 1974,
Rochester , NY : Rochester University Press, 2008. [hereafter “Messay”]
In December of 2008, I wrote in my consolidated book review and
commentary of Messay’s book that summarized Messay’s primary points,
which are often provocative because they go against the grain of accepted
evaluations of the Ethiopian student movement. The question he raised and
answered dealt with how the question of psychology vs. historical dialectics
resulted in a distorted revolution. Messay contend that the student movement
was not a consequence of economic hardship, but a movement born out of
social alienation due to the education bubble created by Haile Selassie’s
education policy. [Messay, 48-49, 95-97]. Furthermore, he contended that
the radicalization of Ethiopian students was not due to rational or dialectical
process but psychological of deeply felt feeling of guilt for rebelling against
inapt “fathers.” [Messay, 143-154, 165-186] To me that bubble is simply an
accidental setup, but the revolt of students and citizens alike was and still is
against the authoritative father figure, the Oedipus complex (symbolized by the
Emperor then, and every leader hence). Teodros did not try to explain the
cause of social discontent resulting in political rebellion in terms political forces.
Unlike Teodros, Andreas is a truly tragic figure because of his weakness in
accepting the patronage of Meles Zenawi, the current Ethiopian Government,
in his appointment as President of the University of Addis Ababa . What
a loss of talent in Andreas’s choice of work, for he betrayed his academic
calling for an administrative profession for which he is badly prepared. The
depth of loathing even by élites, including his contemporaries, is terrible. Any
association with Meles Zenawi continues to be a kiss of death. By contrast,
Teodros remained committed to philosophy, to the love of wisdom, and has
produced numerous articles and several books that definitely benefit his fellow
man. Along with Messay Kebede, Teodros is the great Ethiopian scholar
who is productive and nurturing to all.
V. Elitism, Ethnicism, Federalism, and Social Consciousness
I apologize to my readers for this section for I have expanded it to include
what may look unrelated subject, but in fact is. In order to understand the
ramification of elitism in the Ethiopian context and how it had affected our
lives/ethos, I have taken to task as my point of diversion Professor Andreas’s
work. By his own admission, Andreas was one of the most influential voices
that brought about the current “Federal” structure of the State of Ethiopia
thereby causing the ever deepening fractures across ethnic lines of Ethiopian
communities. In an interview with Callaloo, Volume 33, Number 1, Winter
(2010), (102-116), Andreas affirmed his involvement in the incorporation
of “a federal” state structure for Ethiopia in the 1995 Constitution. Who could
defy and challenge what could only be described as the avalanche
of graduates of Yale University including Fasil Nahum, the drafter of the 1995
Constitution, who were giving credibility to Meles Zenawi and his
supporters in the EPRDF undermining all those who had far more unifying
programs for the battered nation of Ethiopia ?
Here is an extract from the incredulous interview of Andreas Eshete published
in Callaloo, Volume 33, Number 1, Winter (2010):
“WOUBSHET: You’ve argued that federalism is the most viable option for
governing and holding together Ethiopia . Philosophically and historically, why
is federalism the better constitutional option for Ethiopia and Ethiopians?
ESHETE: I think there are both reasons of history and reasons of theory if you
like—practical theory—why this is important. The reasons of history are of
course the fact that there were millions of Ethiopians who were completely
marginalized, who didn’t feel they were Ethiopians or who felt they could not
be Ethiopians unless they gave up their own identity, hid it, or withheld it.
So federalism of course got rid of this necessity. It also made all religions,
all cultural communities in Ethiopia , equal and sovereign. So Ethiopia now is
going to be a free union of these sovereign peoples who now could retain their
identity while becoming full-fledged Ethiopians and in fact the makers and
sovereign architects of the new Ethiopia .”
Andreas is living in a dream world, a few months back he declared that he is
still a socialist. Such is his anachronistic view: “So I am still a socialist and
socialism still has a future for good reasons. I don’t gloat at the failure of
capitalism, but I do enjoy the idea that what is supposed to be the enduring
according to our Western friends, the enduring social form, the only one that
fits our best theoretical knowledge and our best views about evolution, is not
working.” It is hypocrisy of the worst kind for anyone who is greatly
benefiting from a brutal dictatorial Government to be speaking of socialism let
alone federalism. But that is exactly what Andreas is doing. The ongoing
celebration of federalism in Ethiopia, which coincided with the 5th
International Conference on Federalism that opened on December 14 at the
UN Conference Center in Addis Ababa, is a show to behold on the folly of
egotistical leaders, who have butchered innocent people, and even some
accused of genocide and at least one indicted by the International Criminal
Court, congratulating each other for a system that had not been implemented
anywhere but used as an excuse to divide and rule citizens of such victim
countries. Those same people at the Celebration are the dispossessed of
millions of hectares of their fertile land by Meles Zenawi and their land leased
out for a century.
The “Federalism” that both Andreas and Fasil are talking about is the worst
kind and the most primitive type, for it is based on ethnicism and racism that
totally undermines and subordinates all individual fundamental rights to the
ethnic group rights. Ethnicism is the single most destructive tool in the
ongoing balkanization of Ethiopia and its ultimate destruction of Ethiopia . It
was absolutely irresponsible of Fasil and collaborators to have given a cover to
Meles Zenawi to pursue his anti-Ethiopia destructive program in the guise of
Federalism. It is disconcerting if not unhinging to hear Fasil Nahum talks
about the virtue of ethnic based “federalism” in Ethiopia as a program to
saving Ethiopia from disintegration in 1991. Such talk coming from Fasil
Nahum is Kafkaesque in the extreme. He claimed, in a video interview with
Walta of a couple of days ago, that there never was an Ethiopian government
that respected human rights as the current Government of Meles Zenawi. Such
are the statements of shameful lies of dishonorable men of learning. Or is this
inexcusable stupidity or naiveté?
Rather than pontificating about the “feudalism” of traditional Ethiopia , in
trying to discredit Ethiopia ’s tradition and great Emperors, if Fasil had paid
some attention to his scholarship, he would have realized that the concept of
“Federalism” is not something new for Ethiopian rulers, for most of our history
the “King of Kings” presided over autonomous territories governed by local
leaders. It was only during Haile Selassie’s reign that serious centralization
took place with some success. Traditional Ethiopia was not like feudal Europe
One must really be careful in making generalized statements about historical
Ethiopian system of governments.
Fasil Nahum is a man who served Mengistu Hailemariam as an insider and
close collaborator, and he used to sing the same kind of song he is now belting
out trying to convince Ethiopians about the virtue of the “Federalism” of Meles
Zenawi’s regime as he had done for Mengistu’s regime and his 1984
Constitution. Fasil is not even an Ethiopian by ethnicity, if we use his own
criteria of testing for the identity of individuals: he is an Eritrean on his mother’s
side and a Jew on his father’s side. Now, he has continued to lead his charmed
chameleon life hurting Ethiopians once again collaborating with another brutal
and savage leader and his Government that has committed large scale murder,
incarceration of tens of thousands of people, and is still torturing and
detaining Ethiopians as we speak. Such people also tried to portray the
opposition as anti ethnic groups, which is an absurdity, for the opposition is
far more supportive of individual rights which is the very base of ethnic
identity. That approach is far more authentic and respect all Ethiopians
without having to label them like caged animals.
There is also another serious error that is often glossed over by most people
who claim that only a federal structure would insure the ethnic equality of the
diverse “Poeples” of Ethiopians. This form of claim is based on false premises
because it seems to equate the humanness of an individual with the culture of
that individual. It confuses ethnic identity with the fundamental human rights
a human being innately has irrespective of race, ethnicity, skin color, or
gender. The over emphasis of ethnicity in the Ethiopian version of federalism
has at its base the notion of cultural equality as its foundation. It is
perceived by many supporters of “ethnic federalism” as the basis of all human
rights. This is where the fallacy starts. Human beings are ends whereas culture
is a means to an end, thus culture cannot be equated in any form with the
foundational rights attributable to the individual nor can it be placed above or
equal to such individual rights.
Whether it is Andreas or anybody else who is collaborating with the current
Government of Meles Zenawi is selling his or her soul to the Devil. Such
individual is walking on stilts. He or she is the quintessential elitist who is
floating high above everyone, never engaging anyone unless one has political or
financial power or is from an elite school or thereabout—a true deformity of
character—that ought to be evaluated for the degree of harm he may have
caused Ethiopia. By contrast Teodros has repeatedly written challenging the
ethnic based federalism of the current Ethiopian Government and Ethiopian
State structure. [Teodros-2, 207-218] The concern of intellectuals, the likes of
Andreas and Fasil, is the structuring of power; if they speak of the people of
Ethiopia , it is in terms of words like the “masses” that is an undifferentiated
blob, incidental to their main goal of acquisition of power or serving such a
god. Without doubt the people of Ethiopia are the main concern of Teodros.
For example, Teodros devoted over fifty pages, almost a third of his book to
the problem of famine in Africa in general and in Ethiopia in particular.
[Teodros-2, 108-150] Rather than declaring that he is still a socialist or some
such hypocrisy/thing, Teodros came up with a creative solution that does not
bow down to either socialism or capitalism. He called his system of economy
the “moral economy” and offered it as an alternative system to both capitalism
and socialism. [Teodros-2, 113-121] The concept of “moral economy,”
Teodros tells us, is based on the Pharonic Maat, which fact grounds that
concept in our African Continent.
We see often in Ethiopian intellectuals, especially in those who were born in
Addis Ababa or vicinity, such pronounced and incapacitating elitist attitude
that has infected even those that are of recent vintage who lived most of their
lives in foreign lands. The blocking off or alienation of Ethiopians outside of
that pernicious group even in the arts is quite comical, if it were not
devastating to our unity. The recent production in Callaloo, Volume 33,
Number 1, Winter 2010 on the state of the arts in Ethiopia is such a
disappointing attempt of elevation of few individuals by whom Ethiopian art
and artists are to be measured. The individuals involved in that project are
painfully green, and yet they set themselves arrogantly as arbiters and as
paragons of virtue as standard and trend setters for the arts in Ethiopia .
As expected, in Callaloo painters Gebrekiristos Desta and Skunder Boghasian
are edified as pioneers in developing the Arts in Ethiopia . Afework Tekle is
noticeably absent in that name dropping in Callaloo. As a matter of fact, I
believe the two painters Gebrekiristos Desta and Skunder Boghasian, from a
certain perspective had hindered the development of home-grown painting/art
form by distorting the normal flow of creative impulses of young aspiring
Ethiopians by subordinating such minds to their hyphenated art forms in full
imitation of Western modernist paintings. The awarding of the Haile Selassie I
Prize to such painters was a mistake. At any rate, the value of art as a
reflection or expression of ones own culture need not be recognized through
awards and accolades, for it is forceful enough to impose itself on society.
Once upon a time I was also an aspiring painter with plenty of native talent. I
stopped painting because I realized that to survive as an artist in the West
after I relocated my venue, I had to imitate the cultural trends of the society
and produce art works that embodied the pictorial sensibilities of the West, its
style, theme, execution, even philosophy. I chose to remain authentic and
stopped painting altogether and shifted my creative energy to reading and
writing.
I understand intimately the mind of the artist, his sacrifices and aspirations
far more accurately than any of the imitators and cultural vandals and
mercenaries. It is a misunderstanding to think of Ethiopian traditional art
form anything but abstract. What could be more abstract than the
non-representational supra-natural art form of Ethiopia whether it is expressed
in religious thematic form or in secular decorative art expressed in all kinds
of utensils, clothing, hair style, food presentations et cetera. Thus the issue
per se is not the so called “modern” art form but the authenticity and respect
to ones own cultural heritage. Every Ethiopian who grew up in our Ethiopian
culture but reinvent himself as some form of modernist in the style of Western
studio based trained painter is a charlatan and a fake.
In my couple of decades of close scrutiny of the lives of our intellectuals what
I have discovered is the fact that Teodros is the least elitist intellectual.
Teodros wrote several articles wherein it was clear that he was inviting all to
participate in scholarly discourse. He instigated discourses on topics as varied
as the choices for Ethiopia ’s future systems of government, the ethical and
moral issues involving famine et cetera. Almost none responded to his noble
effort. I find such absence of interest, or even worse, neglect, unacceptable.
For example, the individuals involved in the Callaloo fiasco did not even
bother to contact such distinguished scholar like Teodros, but limited
themselves to their incestuous relationships of their groupies both here in the
United States and in Addis Ababa .
Attending an Ivy League school need not be used as a measure of distinction,
after all it is not our Ivy League, and such distinction is not our attribute
either. Teodros knows who he is and writes affirming his identity as an
Ethiopian. He is very comfortable as an Ethiopian unlike a number of Ethiopian
scholars who seem to be in perpetual search for an identity. There is no need
to seek for some identity in any culture, even more so in a culture that has as
its base slavery or minority subculture. After all we never had been anybody’s
slave or colony. It is tragic that elitist Ethiopians in the forefront writing
on Ethiopian art are such individuals who seem to be in total awe of such
subcultures and look down at our own world class culture that they hardly give
attention to or know about. The pursuit of “modernity” since the time of
Emperor Minilik II and in full throttle during the fifty years reign of Emperor
Haile Selassie resulted in distorting and corrupting our cultural identity.
Those transitory migrant Ethiopians from the margins of our Ethiopian social
structure totally succumbed to such influences and paid back our main stream
society with contempt and disdain of our great culture. Their aspiration for
some other cultural outlet is understandable by taking into account the
development of all pseudo cultures from main stream cultures. There is
literally nothing we need in terms of culture from the outside world. We are a
universe to ourselves. If at all the opposite is true. Rather than seeking to
affirm Ethiopia ’s indigenous cultural achievement, our elites try to find
validation in some other cultures and subcultures. What is the relevance of
Jazz or a Jackson Pollock dripping to us that we are supposed to pursue as
some kind of talisman?
The assertion by quite a number of art critics and art historians that art is a
universal language is a very shallow and pedantic idea. In case of the United
States , the type of art criticism that promoted abstract expressionism or
“modern art” in general was as fake as the works thus promoted by the likes of
Clement Greenberg, a CIA hired-gun paid to counter Soviet proletariat art
form. Art is a far complex endeavor of human beings that is often very
subjective and also subjectively appreciated in context of ones culture and life
conditions at a given time. The universalization of any art form is truly very
simplistic. I wrote this particular point just to remind people that even in main
stream America what goes as “Modern Art” is infested with lies and human
frivolity.
One must not forget that the arts in general are considered by biologists, for
example, as non-adoptive changes/activities in human evolution—in other
words, of very little intrinsic value to mankind. Of course, it will be foolish to
think of the creative process and the culture of artistic production as totally
solipsistic. If only such hyphenated Ethiopians know the greatness of the core
cultures of Ethiopia that are still intact in Lasta-Wag, Debre Tabor, Menz,
Amara-Sa’int et cetera they will cut off symbolically their feet that led them
astray. We can still start to rebuild from there and restart the whole
experiment from the source of our great civilization and sink “modernity” with
all its hyphenated sellouts and with all its alien and corrupted subculture.
Messay Kebede’s admonishment is on point on our tragic lose of our identity
due to our disassociation from our core culture because of a distorted
approach in using modern education system that replaced or supplanted our
Orthodox Church based education. Here is where one facet of the academic
lives of scholars like Messay and Teodros could/should intersect where great
collaborative work could result in books of immense value to all of us.
More than any other Ethiopian intellectual, Teodros has extended on several
occasions his invitations, through his several articles, for discourse with any
Ethiopian. A few may have taken him up in his offer. However, what is tragic is
that his peers, Ethiopians in academia, had not responded to his calls. It is
tragic that the affectations and the vanity that many Ethiopians in academia
suffer seem to be incurable. Speaking of Teodros, even his recent books in
their totality are a form of invitation for discourse. Teodros is not only a
brilliant and hard working philosopher but also a person who has humility and
genuine respect of his fellow man. He has the great depth of personality to
know that no one person has a monopoly on knowledge or wisdom and that
through discourse and dialogue much can be achieved.
VI. Moral Economy and Conclusion
My criticism of Andreas is not an attack on “Shoa Amharas,” as few would
jump to such conclusions as was the case in the past. First of all Endreas is not
a “Shoa Amhara” even though he grew up in a decent household of Amharas
in Addis Ababa . Another fact that should be taken into account is the
fact that I have been often accused falsely by ill-informed or ignoramus
bloggers, of drafting or designing the setup of the “Federal” structure even
though I had already left the country and never dealt with the 1995
Constitution drafting Commission headed by Kifle Wodajo. Although Kifle
Wodajo, for whom I had great admiration for his diplomatic abilities and
sublime writing skills, was my boss at one point in the early 1970s, I will not
mince words now in my criticism when I consider his activities as the
Chairman of the Constitution Drafting Commission. He betrayed the Ethiopian
people and the State of Ethiopia and its history heading a Commission that is
instrumental in the destruction of Ethiopia . I have never supported federalism
based on ethnicism or on language for Ethiopia . I believe in a “Unitary”
system with local autonomous provincial administration and with incorporated
urban structures as needed.
The fact remains that a handful of Ethiopian Yale graduates created the
disastrous socio-political experiment and not some people from Harvard. I
too, along with very many Ethiopians, wrongly had blamed Samuel P.
Huntington from Harvard for the type of “Federalism” as practiced in
Ethiopia . However, recently published material vindicates Huntington , for he
had warned Meles Zenawi and his Government the risk of basing a political
structure on ethnicism. Endreas, Fasil, Meles and Sebhat on the first ring and
sycophants the likes of Seyoum Mesfin and the Members of the Central
Committee of the TPLF in toto as second fiddles were responsible for the
Federal structure adopted in the Constitution. To some extent, the career
oriented go-betweens, the likes of Addisu Legesse, Dawit Yohannes, Kassu
Illala et cetera helped the establishment of the current federal structure that is
tearing Ethiopia apart.
It is quite unusual to see in the history of any nation that its successive
leaders have some psychological incapacitating problem of being bastards, or
too short, or too ethnic, or too illiterate, or too rustic, or too fearful, or
too banda et cetera. One may naively think that such features are irrelevant to
the determination of good leadership. But such holistic assessment of leaders is
necessary in order to appreciate the intricacies of what goes in to constituting
a person—even the size of ones fingers matters, and in case of a woman some
such physical attribute. Everything about a person has some role in shaping that
person. Leaders are no exception to that universal human becoming. Every
Ethiopian leader for the last one hundred fifty years had some such problem.
As I stated above, Teodros came up with a wonderful concept to counter the
human degradation due to lack of resources and diminished productivity in
Ethiopia. He called his system “moral economy” and offered it as
an alternative system to both capitalism and socialism. [Teodros-2, 113-121]
It is not a situation where we have discourse and dialogue between Ethiopian
academicians except for the biannual get together of the Ethiopian Studies
conferences. But that is not discourse or dialogue but a form for those who
seek to preach from a rarefied pulpit.
It is not an exaggeration when I state that there is much animosity and hate in
the lives of Ethiopians, especially in the political lives of Ethiopians back
home and/or in the Diaspora. Teodros’s essays are like a breath of fresh and
clean air wafting down the stale and stinking writings of bloggers and
chat-room intellectuals and those who write ad nauseam with a single theme of
“I hate Tigrayans or Woyanes,” in hundreds of variations. Writing in the best
interest of the public without biases or prejudices is a mark of a wise person,
but it requires also moral courage and excellent academic training and native
intelligence.
Raw ego/libido won’t work in turning what is essentially a rustic and vulgar
brain into something that is wise no matter how often and how long one writes.
An objective, intelligent, and polite manner of writing is not an easy task to
carry out consistently and as successfully as Teodros has done over the years
to date. Especially considering the fact that he spent his productive years as
an exile during the brutal government of Mengistu Hailemariam and after, and
yet maintaining that level of integrity is by itself a monumental achievement.
Professor Teodros, thank you for two marvelous and educational books, and
thank you also for all your countless articles and commentaries. Ω
Tecola W. Hagos
Washington DC
| All rights reserved. |
| Ethio Quest News Together We Can Make It! |
 | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |  |
| Ethio Quest News: For latest Ethiopian News, views, Reviews and More |
| Ethiopian Perspective Articles by Category Ethiopian Diversity Ethiopian Economy Ethiopian Politics Ethiopian Women |
| Articles by Teodros Kiros, PhD |
Teodros Kiros,
Philosophical
Essays,
Trenton , NJ:
The Red Sea
Press, 2011,
pages 101.
$19.95.
Philosophical
Essays,
Trenton , NJ:
The Red Sea
Press, 2011,
pages 101.
$19.95.
Teodros Kiros,
Ethiopian
Discourse,
Trenton , NJ:
The Red Sea
Press, 2011,
pages 236.
$24.95.
Ethiopian
Discourse,
Trenton , NJ:
The Red Sea
Press, 2011,
pages 236.
$24.95.
