The Truth About Revolutionary Democracy In Simple Terms (part 1)
If it weren’t in Ethiopia, Meles zenawi’s theory would be banished from the public sphere of ideas long time ago. In Ethiopia though, ideas get traction and attention not on the basis of their logic and rigor, but on the basis of the position of power of their peddlers. We, therefore, find ourselves in an unfortunate situation of having to discuss theories with no substance just because they are the theories of “our leaders”.
Writing this, I find myself in an odd situation. On the one hand, I consider it my duty-in a loose sense- as a political blogger to write on relevant issues of political discourse at home. Relevance can have different meanings, but here I am specifically referring to its meaning as materiality, i.e., whether consideration is due to a thing, or in our case, an issue or a topic. One indicator of relevance of an issue in political discourse is the interest it generates among members of the political community. Surely, on that indicator, revolutionary democracy is a relevant political topic in Ethiopia.
On the other hand, I don’t take revolutionary democracy seriously. That is not because I don’t like it. Yes I don’t. I don’t also have a soft-heart to Marxism, but I would willingly spill gallons of ink writing and arguing about it. I don’t take revolutionary democracy seriously because it has no rigor in its arguments, no generally precise statement of its substantive principles, and no originality except in its utter dishonesty. Nothing! It is just a hot air. If it weren’t in Ethiopia, this theory would be banished from the public sphere of ideas long time ago. In Ethiopia though, ideas get traction and attention not on the basis of their logic and rigor, but on the basis of the position of power of their peddlers. We, therefore, find ourselves in an unfortunate situation of having to discuss theories with no substance just because they are the theories of “our leaders”. It is discontent-ing in the Freudian sense: one wants to throw it off, but one can’t.
Let me begin by clearing up what could be a possible source of confusion in the discussion ahead. Revolutionary democracy has a rich conceptual history mainly, but not solely, related to communism and the social movements of 20th century. But Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, the chief priest of revolutionary democracy in Ethiopia, implicitly and sometimes explicitly distinguished the Ethiopian version from the others without abandoning the term. Readers of his works and speeches are, therefore, well advised to attend to the meaning of his term, not assume that the reference is to revolutionary democracy in its historical and conventional sense. In the spirit of the advice of Ludwig Wittgenstein, I use “RD” to designate Meles’ theory. It helps us to differentiate it from the widely deployed use and interpretation of revolutionary democracy.
Proponents of RD start with a number of criticisms of liberalism, which boil down to one larger point, that is, it doesn’t attempt to solve the most pertinent problems our political community faces. The following is a rough account of these problems.
-Group rights and the ethnic question
-Poverty and development
-Global distribution of resources and globalization
I. General response: accounting problems
Whether by design or ignorance, these attacks ignore liberalism’s post-1950s history. In 1958, the American political philosopher John Rawls published a paper titled Justice as Fairness on The Philosophical review. Justice as Fairness and the subsequent works of Rawls had two substantial consequences to political philosophy. First, They gave life to a subject which in the words of Peter Laslett was dead “for the moment, anyway”. Second, they put the concept of justice at the heart of liberal concern. In 1971, Rawls produced one of the greatest books in the history of Anglo-Saxon political thought, A Theory of Justice. His work sparked a great deal of discussion and responses from libertarians, Marxists, communitarians, feminists and other liberals.
Rawls was no Marx, not even Robert Nozick.. His strengths were his parochialism (in an odd way) and his single-minded focus on the project he started for decades. He developed and changed (on the margins) his theories based on the responses and critics. Other liberals -Rawlsians in particular- have expanded his thoughts and enriched liberalism’s scope.
The issues that RDists raise as the inadequacies of liberal theories have been raised and dealt with by liberals. Let me start from a personal note. My room is messy and cramped. In the shelf, I have 42 books (a small number by any standards). Nearly half of these books are on liberalism. As I am writing this, I see Will Kymlicka’s Multicultural Citizenship: A Liberal Theory of Minority Rights, Liberalism, Community and Culture; Danny Weinstock’s Pluralism and Contemporary Political Philosophy; Amartya Sen’s, The Idea of Justice, Hunger and Public Action (with Dreze), Poverty and Famines: an Essay on Entitlements and Deprivation; Martha Nussbaum’s Disability, Nationality and Species Membership; Susan Okin’s Justice, Gender and the Family; Thomas Pogge’s Global Justice. These books are written by liberal philosophers, and they address the issues proponents of RD say liberal theories don’t.
The smarter RDists could make a claim that their charge is not that liberalism doesn’t try to address the issues, it is that it doesn’t address them in the sense that it gives only very inadequate answers to questions relating to these problems. Remember, this isn’t exactly the kind of argument you listen to in the discourse, but let’s take to heart Mill’s point, as Rawls did, that “a doctrine is not judged at all until it is judged in its best form” and make the RDists charge as strong as possible although Mill was specifically addressing the method of dealing a doctrine’s added contribution, not its criticism of other doctrines. The argument can be put like this: it is well and good that post-1958 liberals have tried to address pressing issues of our country, but their answers lack sufficiency or adequacy, or both. I will come to the distinction between adequate and sufficient later.
This argument can not be answered by offering the number of books written by liberals about the issues. It can only be answered by raising their points and showing that they are adequate and sufficient. The stage is set for the next response.
II. Detailed response: liberal voices
(Coming up…)
This is the apocalypse of melese’s “rd”. Nobody tries to smash ayte melese’s ‘theory with no substance’. Abiye chase away the hot air, meleses ‘rd’, from the public sphere of ideas.
I am expecting to find the answer to these questions in the parts that follow
* where do ideas get “traction and attention on the basis of their logic and rigor” and not “the basis of the position of their peddlers”?
* where is the logic and rigor of liberalism?
Hey Abiy … I was eager to read your article when I see the title. But I didn’t get what I expected. I think limiting yourself to the ‘rough accounts’ what RDs say Liberalism failed to answer is very unsatisfactory way of talking about the ‘truth’ about RD. I think dealing with the arguments of RD in detail, whatsoever problematic it is, is doing justice to the ideas of the ideas of the proponents than trying to criticize it from the Liberals’ point of view. Share us more Abiy :-)!!!!
Hey,
It is just part 1. As RD starts by pointing out to the defects of liberalism before presenting an alternative, it is first better to deal with that critic. Once that is dealt with, I will go to the so-called alternatives RD provides although I think that RD has none even a very flawed alternative if you take away its criticism on liberalism. It is a reactive thought, but one with no substance after the noisy condemnation of other thoughts.
hey,Abiye!!!
first i was very sorry when addis neger closed!!! i also sorry for missed your professional comment on different aspects. now you are returned!!! i will expect more from you!!!
That was a great piece. I hope it would give a spark of light on foundations of the RD philosophy of Meles. But I would like to understand your take on two issues;
1. The schooling of RD is getting popular amongst the EPRDF and Co. camp, especially after the recent financial crisis. Meles is using this moment as an opportunistic time to demise liberal values and advance his cook-book of RD. many writers, Francis Fukuyoma being at the frontline, are repeatedly saying that liberalism would thrive even in this toughest of times. What is your stand on the Meles Vs Fukyoyama Debate? and its possible impact on the future of our country’s political-economy?
2. How do you evaluate the synergy between revolutionary democracy and developmental states? Could the synergy have an inner inertia to solve our complex problems?
i don’t think melse take rd very seriously,and to consider melse as political thinker in any sense of the term is just ridiculous.
Hi Abiy! I was uset when the Addis Neger going out. But now I’m happy you back again though only it is for online community. See you playing a nice role as u played before.
Thanks Abiye,, it is a high standard article, I love to read the next part soon!!!
Thanks Abiy,
You have started a conversation that is long overdue, and you seem to be starting it with the rigor and seriousness that it deserves. I would have to see your next postings to fully assess where you are going. There is one (serious) problem that I observe from the get go, however. You seem to suggest that intellectual rigor and cogent ideas are alien to Ethiopia and Ethiopians. That thought and the list of writers who crowd your room (all of whom are from the North Atlantic region, the origin of the colonial project) scare me. Ideas, however, articulate and cogent, couch interests, and interests are defined by who you are and where you stand. If the foundation of your critique of RD is going to be limited to the liberal theories of Western Europeans and North Americans, without being tied to Ethiopian history, thought, and reality, I am afraid it will just be fodder (true a flourishing one) to charges of being the product of the colonization of our mind. By the way, see this http://aigaforum.com/articles/Bashing_Liberalism.htm. While you are at it see this too http://aigaforum.com/articles/revolutionary_demo_view.htm.
@abiye, why does the PM seem to employ his term only for local consumption? Why does he prefer “Developmental State” when in the company of people from the West? Does his book “Dead ends and… ” mention revolutionary democracy?
Hey,Abiy!I always love to read your constructive articles.this one is not an exception.this phrase has been the mantra of EPRDF’s officials,though,i suspect, none of them can articulate it.recently the PM,through ETV, was ‘teaching’ us about the conceptual marriage between “RD”and Developmental State. we are fated to be people to accept what we have been told by our leader no mater how trash it may be.i hope the remaining part of your article will have something to say about recent explanation of the PM.
Halloo ,Abiy n addisneger,,
am glad u guys made it , back again even more convininient ( well ,to some of us i have to admit).
I appreciate the your account of RD in the light of Liberalism with emphasis on its Meles-version.
But i wish u guys enlighten us more on contemporary ethiopian politics at an even more simpler terms. I mean pls blog on weyane and our current problems in a more understandable way to us the commons.
TY Abiy
zamm