2010: Time to Grow Less Ideological
&
More Peaceful
Adal Isaw
January 3, 2010
Ideology is an elusive term—for which dozens of definitions exist without a commonly accepted serviceable definition. The struggle to find a definition to end the debate on all definitions of ideology will continue. And triumph for the struggle is hopeless, since the definitional problem of ideology emanates from its own complex nature and dynamic characteristics.
In a day-to-day social discourse, to be called ideological is tantamount to being accused of immutability, fanaticism, cursoriness and conformity. In a heated sectarian political discourse, however, ideology is dependent to worldviews held by conservatives, liberals, radicals and…etc. Ideology is thus in part like “beauty,” ingrained in the eye of the beholder that some see ugliness in the beholder’s conceived “beauty”—precisely because arguing for ones own ideological position often begins by defining ideology— according to ones own outlook, adorned by “goodies.”
Like a music that soothes a depressed life, ideology soothes to uplift the inner emotional political life of like-minded groups. It accouters a roaster of heroines, heroes and martyrs. It sifts out those who’re not in line with ones own politics as rogues, traitors and haters. It gives like-minded groups the comfort to vent their spleen against those who stand to oppose them. It allows groups to go beyond dissenting—to create symbols, myth, rituals, anthem and flags to which they pay homage instinctively without concern to their historical accuracy.
Moreover, ideology furnishes a thought process that simplifies complicated and exigent issues into energizing slogans. It converts politics into a messianic deliverance—the kind that simplifies the complex issue of anatomizing a group into “Kinjit menfes neaw” kind of rhetoric. A messianic deliverance is a religious-based political thought process so convinced of its own truth; it stands to dismiss other views as satanic in a heartbeat. Since one does not compromise about messianic deliverance and about that which has become the spirit, the end results of such an ideological discourse are only hate and violence.
The time for ideological discourse of hate and violence should end. And the time for us Ethiopians in the Diaspora to grow less ideological with modern touch of political discourse should begin. 2010 is the year to gauge the hateful and violent nature of our ideological discourse—to let the effort of developing our country continues with very few benign obstacles in its path. We should at all times be mindful of the fact, that in the absence of a hateful and violent ideological discourse, peace is the victor that which wheels our beloved country into its inevitable better future.
Of course, it is nearly impossible, to fully prevent the hateful and violent ideological contention from miring Ethiopia’s political discourse. But with time, the prevalent belligerent worldviews with combative accent will give way to accommodations and consensus. This is exactly what the recent Code of Conduct Agreement produced—a modern ideological discourse based on accommodations for better Ethiopia. We Ethiopians in the Diaspora should learn a great deal from the Code of Conduct Agreement and act in manners to accommodate each others’ views a place of tolerance. We should also be cognizant of the fact that rarely ever the taintlessness of our ideological view survives its possible ascend to political power.
Consider the Communist Party of China; EPRDF of Ethiopia; the Obama administration of America and many others—to confirm that rarely ever the taintlessness of an ideological view survives its possible ascend to political power. Implementing ideological views of a group, an association and a party in the real world tends to be a sobering experience, as Mirabeau, (one of the key actors in the French Revolution) noted, that when the radical Jacobin revolutionaries became ministers, they rarely acted as “Jacobin ministers.”
To lead a country is to face decisions contrary to ones own ideological convictions. Ask Meles, Obama, Hu Jintao and other great leaders; each will undoubtedly answer yes to your question. No leader of a country in our world is at luxury, to render decisions based on his own ideological convictions, circumventing foreign worldviews and interests that stand to lose from what is being decided.
From the periphery and away from the chamber of governorship, theoretical presuppositions; academic explanations—both in favor and against; loaded nationalist adjectives that applaud economic and political patriotism; phrases and articles that are hard to argue against and poems that boil the blood of a caring citizen, are merely rituals easier said than done. Just ask President Barrak Obama; he will gladly explain it to you with the greatest adorable smile in his face.
It is with this reminder, that we Ethiopians in the Diaspora should rethink and calibrate the contentious nature of our ideological discourse for the sake of our people and country. This is not a proposition to end sharp disagreement in Ethiopian political contest, but a suggestion for those who harbor hate and violence to end their medieval ideological discourse. They may disagree based on their own principles—until they realize that principles only give birth to probabilities and the truth is only obtained from facts, as Nathaniel Hawthorne noted. Let’s make 2010 a happy new year—the time for us Ethiopians in the Diaspora to grow less ideological and more peaceful.