Tradition and Modernity: A Faustian Bargain?
No wonder civility and celebrating dissent were the trademarks of Ethiopian society when it comes to a very crucial issue potentially divisive and violent-our understanding of God. Some serious criticisms about Ethiopia’s modern intellectuals on my last articles have made me question whether I (as an individual) and us (as a collective) have the courage to declare that our understanding of any notion is by no means a monopoly of the truth. This is an obvious truism, which is seldom translated into action.
This is an article inspired by Mohammed Selman’s Amharic piece on Merkato. Among many things that fascinate me about our society is the utmost regard it proffers on scholarship and learning. Wisdom is far more celebrated than might or fortune. This has been the case way before the introduction of modern secular education in Ethiopia, where the bulk of our intelligentsia was groomed in Church and Koranic school.
Both the Ethiopian Orthodox church and our Islamic schools deserve admiration in providing us our own curricula of education, in teaching Geez and Arabic as languages of instruction, in providing not only doctrinal but also theo-philosophical lessons about God, humanity, ethics and moral in society. The idea that we were Christians before Europeans and Muslims before Saudis is noteworthy.
The fact that the leaders as well as the followers of these two great religions (I prefer to call them meta-narratives) lived with love and respect to each other is itself unbelievable. Nobody else captured that sense of mutual respect and peaceful co-existence than Teddy Afro’s “Shemendefer”. Even more humbling, is that unassuming modesty of the religious leaders in both camps.
I know of a famous Moslem cleric and church Abbot in Wollo who were best educated in their respective religions but were the best friends ever. The son of the Sheikh used to be a college friend of ours who once asked his dad, “Don’t you feel uncomfortable befriending a priest whose teachings of God are way different than yours?” The Sheikh sanguinely responded, “Ene min agebagn, ke hulet andu haimanot afer yibelal!!” This was a disarmingly honest reply saying that no matter how sophisticated you are about your perspective on God, you cannot claim a monopoly of truth about God. The day we begin declaring so is the day we tailor the omniscient and omnipotent deity down to the confines of our limited understanding.
No wonder civility and celebrating dissent were the trademarks of Ethiopian society when it comes to a very crucial issue potentially divisive and violent-our understanding of God. Some serious criticisms about Ethiopia’s modern intellectuals on my last articles have made me question whether I (as an individual) and us (as a collective) have the courage to declare that our understanding of any notion is by no means a monopoly of the truth. This is an obvious truism, which is seldom translated into action.
If this was the case, our exchanges would leave a margin of error for our interlocutor even when we disagree with him. It would mean exchanges do not generate into personal and vicious tirades against each other. It would mean comments would be more constructive than destructive. It means people would take responsibility of what they say at least by putting their first real names (at least those in the Diaspora) and would not abuse their anonymity to tear each other down unceremoniously. On this particular score, we have failed our predecessors.
I admit one of the reasons why such important values are missing in action is because our introduction to modern education (and modernity in general) was in ways that discard everything traditional. This is more so with the introduction of Marxism Leninism into the political rhetoric of the country from the early 70s on.
In an article on Ethiomedia, Dr Yacob Hailmeariam has succinctly summarized how vitriolic our rhetoric has become partly due to Marxism Leninism. In his word:
It is well known that Marxism-Leninism is alien or has little tolerance for civility and compromise. Being civil is a bourgeois nonsense which seeks to blur the real issues and blunt the sharp edges of class conflict thus inhibiting decisive class struggle. It is enough to recall Lenin’s reference to his opponents as scoundrels and vermin to know that Marxists do not mince their words when they deal with their adversaries. Since old habits do not die easily this modus operandi unfortunately informs political discourse in Ethiopia today both on the side of the opposition and more so with the ruling party even after the demise of Marxism-Leninism.
A mentor and colleague of mine at AAU, Dr Fekade Azeze, used to give us stimulating insights on how some words filtered into our political vocabulary reminiscent of the change the leftist generation aspired. A very good example was the usual phrase “Sir Nekel Lewut”, an Amharic shorthand for “radical change” but could literally mean an “uprooting change”. Gash Fekade used to challenge us asking, “Had there been any such plant which grew after being uprooted?” Instead of a “Sir Nekel Lewut”, he remarked, we need a “ Sir Tekel Lewut”. An Indian literary giant and a Nobel Prize winner, Rabindranath Tagore, phrased it nicely on his famous one line poem entitled “Freedom”. Tagore wrote, “The emancipation of the tree from the bondage of the soil is NOT Freedom!”
Derese, thank you for this wonderful article. You put so eloquently.
Thanks
Whilst it is critically important that we build bridges between people of different religious denominations, we shouldn’t at the same time overlook the significance of history. The Gragn Mohammed invasion (some actually call it not an invention), the conversion of Atse Susyenyos to Catholicism and the subsequent bloodshed, the removal from power of Lij Iyasu on pretexts of conversion to Islam are some of the events which warn us against a simplistic and extremely romantic view of religious tolerance in Ethiopia. Institutions are by their very definition sticky in that it takes a good deal amount of time to change them. The Marxist view, which was quite popular between the late 1960s and the end of the cold war, could not and should not assume much responsibility, let alone full, for the prevalence of Ethiopia’s autocratic political culture.
As for terms like ‘sir nekel lewut, the good Dr. should have lectured about autoantonysm or contranym. These are words with homographs (a word of same spelling) that is antonym (a word with the opposite meaning) ‘Derese’ could be used as ‘yedesta ken derese’ or ‘yemekera ken derese.’That is why sir nekel lewut is ok when the uprooted plant is poverty and war.
Michael,
I actually would be disappointed if the good doctor had spent much time (I have no information whether he did or not) lecturing about cotranyms while discussing political change. I think bringing theories of micro-level sense contradictions to the study of politics irrespective of our ability to cognitive reconciliation is unscientific carpet-bombing. But you are right to advise him to give due regard to the context the vocabulary was deployed.
Abiye,
I hope you are not totally ruling out the usevalues of content analysis (which, among others, includes analysis of the different meanings of texts)in politics. Content analysis is the systematic, objective, quantitative analysis of message characterstics. Many scholars try to dissect and analyse political speeches so as to figure out actual, as opposed to, stated political views. After all, we know that in politics stated preferences and revealed preferences often do not match. Like you, I have no idea if the good doctor lectured about it or not.
Michael,
Not at all. Content analysis is relevant in some contexts.My point was limited to micro-level sense contradictions.
Michael,
As you know there are many ways to interpret historical incidents such as the invasion of Gragn Ahmed. In my opinion, his invasion and the destruction of monastries and churches and the invasion of highland Ethiopia’s territories was not RELIGIOUSLY motivated.. He was a lowlander,with imperial ambitions in search for lush green, cooler and more fertile lands. He wanted to rule.
Ancient fedual empires like Ethiopia have always been the target of lowlander, resource strained pastoralists just like the various raids and invasions of the Monghols on the chinese empire.The irony was that, this local and imperial conflict between libne dengel and Ahmed was saught in the international struggle for dominance-this time between the Portugese and Ottoman Turks..a classic incident remiscent of Africa’s cold war years…the rest as you and me know is history.
This is not to argue that the church has been instrumental in the formation, legitimation of the Ethiopian state in its formation and consolidation-of course it did. Afterall the kings used to be ordained by bishops.It was a christian monarch who accepted the exiled followers of Prophet Mohammed. Up until the 1970s the church used to own, run and benefit from a sizable amount of estates. So I am not arguing that Christianty and Islam started off on equal footing at all! Lij Iyyassu’s history of deposition strikes chord here too.
I dont think much of what people meant about ‘Sir nekel lewut’ came in the rubric of ‘uprooting war and poverty”…the context was and still is quite different. But if poverty and war are to be uprooted,i will be elated.
Deru,
Thank you for taking the time to write this article from your busy schedule. I got a good lesson from your article. Keep on your good work.