Beyond being an outlook, Medemer as a philosophy in my assessment is essentially about inclusiveness. Without me, there is no you.
Martin Luther King Jr. In my view, applied broadly to Ethiopian society, Medemer creates a simple calculus: Without Oromos, there are no Amharas; without Amharas, there are no Tigreans; without Tigreans there are no Somalis; without Somalis, there are no Sidama; without Sidama, there are not Woleyita; without Woleyita, there are no Afari; without Afari, there are no Harari; without Harari, there are no Anuak; without Anuak, there are no Gurage and on and on.
Amharas, Oromos, Tigreans…. When Ethiopians of diverse backgrounds come together, they function like fingers on the hand. They can make a fist and repel aggression. They can open their palms and give each other a hand up. They can do all things that the so-called developed countries have done by harnessing Medemer their collective energies. Medemer philosophy could serve as our lifeline to save us from sinking aboard a ship of fools.
Individuals must strive to play fair by the rules of Medemer society. For instance, corrupt practices by public officials not only harm the society by diverting resources but also rob public confidence in the system of cooperation and competition. I have discussed that issue in a previous commentary extensively [22].
In , tone party won Such victory occurred in a country boasting 79 registered opposition political parties. These problems can be solved when institutional stakeholders work at the grassroots level for a common goal.
Political parties need not be splintered into separate token entities. They can come together into three or four cohesive organizations and present a formidable multiparty political challenge and choice by energizing and mobilizing the grassroots. Medemer politics requires political competition based ideas, programs, principles, etc. The author argues we should preserve what is best from the old and the past and introduce innovations to improve the lives and conditions of the people.
Medemer, in this regard, is a critique of the approach to change particularly in the past one-half century. The author rejects the tendency Ethiopians have shown to always tear down everything of the past and urges that it is far more profitable to build upon what has already been done. Medemer politics argues for use of political energy not to fight the old and tear down the past but to build a brave new society of the future that thrives on consensus and cooperation for a common destiny.
Some 85 percent of the population makes a living in subsistence agriculture. Solving them requires the synergistic interaction of entrepreneurs, innovators, investors, planners and leaders. The author explains the necessity of sustaining economic development and prosperity by making basic reforms in the financial sectors, opening up key economic activities to private investment, creating more job opportunities for youth, ensuring fair distribution of benefits to the population and enhancing the agricultural, manufacturing and mining sectors through direct foreign investment.
The Medemer economy aims to create new structures and instruments of community development that deliver balanced, equitable and sustainable development as an alternative to the uneven, inequitable development driven by massive state spending and foreign debt.
Medemer also has in an intellectual dimension. Medemer offers the intellectual a new way of thinking which examines historical failures and successes for the purpose of reinventing a new society based on a set of core beliefs in society around shared goals, dreams and aspirations. The author argues the best role for intellectuals is to bring diverse viewpoints, facts and analysis to the marketplace of ideas and try to sell them to the people.
By bringing together scattered ideas, discarding old ones and adding new ones, it is possible to develop a syntheses that can help guide Ethiopia out of the shoals of political turbulence, economic decay and social strife. In my view, the author presents a far more nuanced and delicately complex conception of Medemer which combines social, economic, political and philosophical ideas and approaches.
The author argues these three factors together define core aspects of human existence though these needs are rarely fully satisfied. However, these needs, which could be contradictory or complementary, must be met to some extent to make the person whole. Thus, in the Medemer conception, man has the power expressed through free will to change his natural ecosystem or social environment for good or ill. Man chooses to make peace or war, or to compete or cooperate. He implicitly rejects causal determinism which assumes every event and choice is caused by some event in the past or in history.
The author argues the dominant modern ideological systems have sought to meet basic human needs in various ways. He contrasts liberalism and socialism and identifies the key ideological differences in their comprehension of equality and freedom.
Liberalism, the author argues, in its original formulation evolved as a belief in the right of individuals to freely pursue their own goals by self-chosen means without infringing on the liberties of others. Liberalism as an ideology promoted individual freedom, rule of law and private property, with the free exchange of goods and ideas.
It strongly resisted state economic controls. His conception of liberalism has Lockean roots. He argues liberalism is the ideological foundation for the Industrial Revolution based on a free market economy regulated by the Invisible Hand [24]. As liberalism is a reaction to tyranny, it promotes limited government and sees answers in a market economy. According to the author, the primary function of government in a liberal society is the protection of the pre-existing rights of the individual.
Socialism, he argues, is a reaction to liberalism. The concentration of power and wealth in a liberal system gives rise to inequality. Workers are exploited and mistreated. Since workers create wealth through their labor, they should be primary beneficiaries. The socialist solution is to bury capitalism and on its grave build an economy that maximizes equality even at the cost of political liberties. But socialist systems often morphed into totalitarianism. Reconciling freedom and equality is at the core of modern political struggles.
In a liberal democracy, the aim is not to abolish capitalism which is the source of inequality but to fix it by using social welfare programs that minimize inequality and meet basic needs.
The author perceives the confluence of the ideological struggle in the Ethiopian student movement of the s as a critical historical watershed.
He argues the demand for change and revolutionary sentiment expressed in the student movement was uninformed, shallow, doctrinaire and dogmatic. The student movement had a superficial understanding of socialism. But the whole effort was ahistorical as there were few industries at the time and the number of workers was minuscule.
With the student movement in Ethiopia in the s, the tendency was to demonize those who did not agree to the established orthodoxy of a few leaders. Dissent was stamped out in vilification campaigns. In the posts period, this trend contributed significantly to political polarization which inevitably produced social and political divisions.
The author laments the fact that rebellious youth of the s and early s got drunk on foreign ideas they did not understand. The same dynamics drove the military Derg which dethroned the monarchy and adopted socialist policies wholesale without much understanding or capacity to properly apply it to local conditions. To maintain power, the Derg copycatted the red and white terror campaigns of other socialist countries to deal with its opponents and dissenters.
When the command economy of socialism did not work, in the end the Derg tried the mixed economy of capitalism. But that was too little too late. The author argues the failure of socialism left a major gap in the political debate. That vacuum was filled by debates over ethnicity, religion, language, region, etc. Following the fall of the Derg, there was Western pressure to liberalize the economy, open the political space, allow free press, public demonstrations and formation of new political parties and so on.
RD was supposed to be a temporary transitional process but ended up being permanent having tied the economy to all aspects society. But in Ethiopia that was hindered by limited foreign investment, absence of the rule of law and due process and cronyism. The DS restricted political space. Ultimately, the RD originally designed to benefit the peasants ended up creating a single-party system, led to the control of the bureaucracy and destruction of the opposition.
As the capitalist mode became dominant, RD was unable to withstand the diverse economic demands and pressures. The author argues the object lesson from the experiences of the past decades is that wholesale importation of foreign ideologies which the elite in Ethiopia neither fully understood nor could execute has proven to be harmful.
Such a task need not be a rejection of foreign ideologies. It must however be critical, eclectic, syncretic and ultimately aim to create a society that values cooperation and collaboration and minimize conflict. They would rather foment dissensus and cause ethnic, communal and sectarian strife.
The author argues, Ethiopians need national unity. They cannot exist as geographical fragments, monads. Nations, nationalities and peoples in Ethiopia share a common destiny emanating from historical, cultural and social ties. Indifference is another obstacle the author identifies as an obstacle. Some people who in principle agree with Medemer philosophy nonetheless dismiss it and remain silent out of suspiciousness, cynicism or pessimism.
They see an imaginary hidden agenda in Medemer. Those afflicted by engedenet prefer to watch from the sidelines unable or unwilling to be directly involved in Medemer experience. They think they can get a better opportunity by waiting it out. Those suffering from this affliction are sources of polarization.
They see things in stark contrast of black and white. They do not appreciate reality is shaded and with gradation. There is nothing that is all bad and all good. Human beings have some elements of each. These are the sticks-in-the-mud. They drive looking in the rear-view mirror.
They are stuck in the past and unable to change or work synergistically. Medmer is a forward-looking philosophy and requires people to look at yesterday to learn lessons and not repeat mistakes. There are those who engage in simplification of issues. They see problems and issues without a context. They lack imagination. They thrive on disconnected ideas. They make mountains out of molehills. The culture of disregard for professions is another obstacle to Medemer.
There are those who do not value professions. They demean and disrespect those who have skills. They look down on musicians, metal workers, pottery makers, tanners and so on. They look at merchants as thieves. There are those who are ill-tempered and hardwired to think negatively are obstacles to Medemer. They are bereft of useful ideas but thrive in opposing whatever is trending.
Those who operate without a conscience, lack a moral compass and are driven by greed and self-interest represent an obstacle to Medemer. The author contends cooperation and competition exist in the very nature of things. Organisms function in an ecosystem and to survive and thrive must alternatively engage in cooperation and competition.
But competition is more of an exception than a rule. Competition often ends up being a zero-sum game in which the winner takes all. It has a high tendency to lead to cyclical conflict in nature. Therefore, organisms as a rule maximize their survival by engaging in cooperative, not competitive, behavior.
Reading is important because it develops our thoughts, gives us endless knowledge and lessons to read while keeping our minds active. Reading books to help us learn and understand and makes us smarter, not to mention the knowledge, vocabulary and thinking skills we develop. In the world today where information are abundant, reading books is one of the best ways to be informed. Though reading might seem like simple fun, it can be helping your body and mind without you even realising what is happening.
What makes reading so important? It can be for these reasons and not just knowledge. Can something so easy and fun be so helpful in your life? Of course, it can! Reading can be a great benefit to you in many different ways—such as sharpening your mind, imagination, and writing skills.
With so many advantages, it should be an everyday occurrence to read at least a little something. Books can hold and keep all kinds of information, stories, thoughts and feelings unlike anything else in this world. Can words, paragraphs, and fictional worlds be all that great for you and your health? It definitely can, and it is a timeless form of entertainment and information. Post a Comment.
0コメント