Skip to content

Truth is stranger than fiction

Posted on by Elias Kifle

By Alethia

This article attempts to trace the origin of some of the values and principles the current Ethiopian government holds and compares the origin of such values and principles with that of the leadership of the leading opposition party in current Ethiopian political context, wherever that leadership is, both in jail and otherwise. Though very brief, in the present article, I want to diagnose and bring out, at least, some of the possible root causes that plague the current political leadership in Ethiopia.

I believe dealing with the root causes of any problem has more lasting values, and, on the other hand, if we continue to treat the symptoms while failing to diagnose and treat the ultimate sources of the ills that have befallen us as a nation, it’s obvious that whatever solutions that we come up with are not going to be lasting solutions. Part I focuses on the values and principles of the current Ethiopian government. Part II will look at the values and principles that shape the visions of the leading opposition party in current Ethiopia. Part III will examine values that we seem to have lost (or, we never or barely had) and proposes a solution for our societal ills that plague us as a nation.

The present article has some audacity to it and it’s intentional. What I mean by that is that it calls fellow Ethiopians to face our own current political ills as a society and as a nation collectively, even beginning with a confession by ourselves that much of the ills that permeate the leadership of the current government in Ethiopia could be traced back to the values and principles that originate in us as a society; both the current government and Ethiopia as a nation, share some degree of blame for what is happening and what we’re going through. What I mean to share here, I believe, is some truth about us, Ethiopians and the current Ethiopian government, which is stranger than fiction.

That is true at times and what I’m sharing with you, my readers, confirms the truth of what I’m arguing about here in a strange way, at least for some of us. Now I want us to bear in mind the following points: When I refer to the current Ethiopian government I mean the government in power in exactly the way it is . When I refer to the leading opposition party leadership I mean those who are in prison, and wherever, who are part of the leading opposition party in Ethiopia today. When I refer to the government with a pronoun “it” I mean to speak of the institution that symbolizes and exemplifies the values and visions and principles of the individuals that constitute the current Ethiopian government and hence my usage of “it”.

Now, given the historical origin of the current Ethiopian government, in virtue of what are we seeking and hoping that such a government would think and act in such radically, diametrically opposite ways, with diametrically opposite principles and values and vision? Are we, Ethiopians, being realistic to think and hope and believe that such a government would start thinking and acting in such a way that all the values and principles which constitute its true nature, its identity, would disappear overnight in the face of the heroic protestations of the nation, the Ethiopian society at the present moment in history? I hope the preceding questions are sufficient for us to reflect on what I mean to share with fellow Ethiopians, including the current government and its opposition party leaders, wherever they are.

Here’s what I thought and believed way before the historic May 2005 election and in those tragic days that followed it, the tragedy being the loss of too many human lives and the fact that all of those in the leadership of the leading opposition party have been deprived of their rights as human beings to express their political disagreement and suffer so much injustice. Given the deeply ingrained values and principles that the current Ethiopian government embodies over the years (mind you that such values and principles have been partly inherited from the previous generation of leaders and also in the current government’s struggle to take power from the leadership of its immediate predecessor), I did not think for a moment that the current government would concede defeat in the May 2005 election and smoothly hand power over to its opposition party leadership. I was not being pessimistic then and even now I’ve not changed my mind about what is happening and will continue to happen in Ethiopia unless some radical though gradual change of leadership takes place. Part II will explore that aspect of radical and gradual change in the right and desirable direction.

Given all that has gone into the making of the current government’s historically shaped identity and also given our knowledge of how values and principles that we embody shape our thoughts, decisions, and actions, I did not have any good reason to believe (ca May 2005) that Ethiopia was at a stage to experience the ideally desired and desirable changes in the political leadership of our nation. I admit this is somehow depressing as a reality to take and swallow but then it’s a reality we’ve faced and we’re facing and we’ve got to admit it. Reality bites, as they say, and it’s for our own good in the long run that it’s good for us to realize why we’re suffering what at the moment and how we can overcome the morass and the nightmare that the current Ethiopian government and its political leadership has been exemplifying before our own eyes.

Here’s a little argument that will help us capture what I’m arguing about:

* All human beings hold values and principles that shape their decisions and actions.
* The Ethiopian government is made up of individual human beings.
* Therefore, the Ethiopian government holds values and principles that shape its decisions and actions.

Now in order for our little argument’s conclusion– (3) above– to be true both our argument should be valid, which it is, and its premises must be true. Premise (1) seems to be true. One can take issues with premise (1) but then I do not see how the truth of premise (1) could be disputed in a plausible way for it’s obvious that all human beings value one thing over the other (hence they hold values in even multiple forms) and their decisions and actions, under normal circumstances, reflect the values they hold. Even if our values do not consistently determine our decisions and actions in an explicit way they do largely shape them. It’s difficult to dispute the truth of premise (1) in that sense.

Premise (2) simply says that the current Ethiopian government, obviously, is made up of individual human beings, and hence is a particular example of the universal statement that premise (1) states, and, therefore, it’s true, because it’s entailed by premise (1). For premise (2) to be false, the only possible way is if the current Ethiopian government does not consist of human beings, which is simply false. Therefore, our conclusion (3) above is true and it follows from the two premises (1) & (2), which are true, respectively.

Now, let’s take concrete examples of what kind of values and principles the current Ethiopian government holds to bring out the fact what this little argument means to show us.

Here are some examples that the current government values and exemplifies:

1. Ruling a nation with an absolute power of gun is acceptable and even desirable in the face of any opposition;

2. Killing, intimidation, and terror of even innocent lives is acceptable, desirable, and expedient in the face of opposition;

3. Fabricating lies, perverting justice, and taking the rule of law into one’s hand is a desirable and acceptable and expedient thing to do in the face of opposition;

4. The value of human life, in the face of challenges to one’s political power, is inferior to one’s long-term political goal, whatever that is; human beings could serve as means to achieve an end which is not necessarily human flourishing;

5. Opportunities like being in political power, with all its accompanying glories, come only once, and, therefore, whatever it takes, it’s a good and even desirable thing to maintain one’s grip in power;

6. There is superiority among humans based on one’s ethnic origin and the best way to demonstrate such superiority is by way of systematic, ethnically based politics that decimates the nation and thereby proves the superiority of one ethnic group;

7. Arrogance, pride, stubbornness, overconfidence in one’s native power are “virtues” that must be demonstrated in the face of all who challenge and oppose.

These are examples of concrete values that shape the decisions and actions of the current Ethiopian government and it’s very difficult to doubt that the above (1)-(7) are examples of values that define the true identity of the current Ethiopian government. Mind you, these examples are some of the core values in action that we, along with the whole world, consistently observe and you can add others to the list to have a clear picture of what moves such a government to action that is tragically shaping the history and destiny of Ethiopia as a nation if such a government is left to its own devious devices.

Truth is stranger than fiction. Now, where do such values, that the current Ethiopian government exemplifies, come from? I believe part of an answer to this question could be found in what I’ve meant above when I said, “…much of the ills that permeate the leadership of the current government in Ethiopia could be traced back to the values and principles that originate in us as a society; both the current government, and Ethiopia as a nation, share some degree of blame for what is happening and what we’re going through”. I believe such a thought seems to be too harsh to even be considered true for, perhaps, most of my fellow Ethiopians. Some might ask, are you saying that the Ethiopian people are to blame for what the current Ethiopian government is doing? Are you trying to defend the legitimacy of the present government in power by any means? Absolutely not! Are you trying to explain away the reality of all the evil that our government has brought about upon the people of Ethiopia? Absolutely not! What are you after then? Good and pointed questions. I agree.

I’ve said above that this article is an attempt, no matter how fallible, at a possible diagnosis of the root causes of our current political crisis especially as exemplified in the way the current Ethiopian government rules the country. Now I propose the following as a possible, even as a plausible, solution for the ills that have befallen our nation: Ethiopia as a nation and the course of its history and its destiny will take a desirable and positive direction only if those in the leadership will start to replace those values that have defined them as leaders and have been driving them into all tragic decisions and actions by some radically opposing, intrinsically good, and desirable values that are conducive for the development and flourishing of any society, including the Ethiopian society.

Now proposing such an idea is easier than showing how that can be accomplished. I’ll say more about that in another article, Part III, but for now, in the meantime, here’s something to think about: any country’s leaders, be in politics or otherwise, largely acquire the values that shape them for good or for bad as leaders from the society that they originate and eventually belong to and even rule over. Most of the values that we observe in the current Ethiopian government have their origins (as it was the case in the lives and actions of our past leaders too) in the society that they come from. Mind you that these leaders are, given a chance as they have been, some of us in the worst shape or form possible. Truth is stranger than fiction, indeed.

We, Ethiopians, as a society, I’ll argue in Part III, have lost virtues/ values that shape the characters of our leaders in a desirable way for many years. We claim to be a very religious society with profoundly religious and moral values that could have shaped Ethiopian history in a much desirable direction for centuries but then we’ve been what we claimed to be who we are largely in name, i.e., nominally. We, as a society, are paying a heavy price today because we’ve failed to live up to what we claim to be what defines us as a society and as a nation. Sounds judgmental, right? Part III will be an attempt to bring out what is not self-evidently true about what I’m after at the moment.

Let’s return to our true identity if we had one before or embrace a desirable identity that shapes our society and its leaders in such a way that we shall prevail. My next article will look at the values and principles of the opposition political party and its leadership. The third article, as I said, will look deeper into the values that define us as a nation and a society and how our destiny and that of posterity’s is partly in our hands. It’s a sober and sad fact that our leaders are the products of the values and principles that they have inherited from the larger society they derive their origins from; they are us writ large but then the worst incarnations of us. Truth is stranger than fiction, indeed.

The writer can be reached for comments at [email protected]

4 thoughts on “Truth is stranger than fiction”

  1. Pingback: Who can change truth? - Ethiopian Review Opinion Journal
  2. Pingback: Who am I? Who are we? Knowing the truth about us - Ethiopian Review Opinion Journal

  3. Dear Readers:

    I’m posting one of a very thoughtful responses to the articles posted on ER, esp., Part III, which is “Who am I? Who are we?” by one of those who’ve taken time to read and respond very thoroughly. I’m deeply grateful to such a thought-provoking response and I received a permission from the writer to post the response followed by my own response so that those who want to participate in these dialogues, reflections, and soul-searching exercises by fellow Ethiopians can have an access to all of them.

    My respondent’s response frst:
    __________________________________________

    “ Who are we?” yes! it is a relevant question
    A reaction to the article “Who am I”
    I have read with interest the series of articles posted by Althea on the Ethiopian “crisis”. What I could sum up from the writings are the following.
    The ruling government is guided by a set of values that cannot be termed good.
    The opposition leaders espouse values that are universally accepted as good.
    The current Ethiopian problem is a result of the moral and spiritual decay that prevails in the society.
    The way to get out of this quagmire is, to under go individual moral renewal and embrace the Christian values of love, humility…etc.
    Since the values are universal even non-Christians should not object to accommodating the suggestion.
    ..and here is my reaction.
    In the beginning of the series it is stated that members of the opposition and the ruling government hold diametrically opposed personal values and hence their respective roles in the Ethiopian politics. Such over simplification of the state of affairs leads to the underestimation of the struggle that awaits us. If I may use an example; a judge who gives out a capital punishment, and an ardent opponent to such punishment both start from the premise that the taking of human life is basically wrong. And yet one kills for it and the other does not see the need to. In the same way it is possible for two groups to have comparable values but use very different means to uphold those values. Indeed in a political arena, an authoritarian regime that believes with all its collective heart that, it is working for the benefit and welfare of his people and is willing to do any and everything in its power is the most dangerous.
    The article seems to imply that the vicious cycle of poverty, war and famine that our people have been subjected to is a product of a societal moral and spiritual decay. And as a solution it is suggests that our society should try to espouse the Christian values of love, kindness, truthfulness and humility. Even though there is some truth in this allegation, it minimizes the immediate roles that lacks of education, leadership and good governance play in the perpetualization of our problems.
    Almost every passing generation complains of the moral and character erosions that abound in the newer generation. Aristotle in his time admonished the younger generation for their lack of ‘respect to elders’, ‘loud obtrusiveness’, ‘love of material things’ and more… and that was twenty five hundred years ago. By taking analogies from the Bible it is tempting to maintain, that the current problems of our society is a product of the vices that have a grip on us as suggested in the article. However, it is my position that lack of education, leadership and virtual absence democracy and good governance contribute at least as much if not more.
    The author recognizes that the virtues that he mentions are not the exclusive property of the Christian faith and yet through out the writing I see attempts to make them primarily Christian. I am a Christian and the scriptures tell me not every body going to end up being a Christian. Given this reality, I accept like most people, that democracy with all its imperfections is the principal solution for development and advancement. Faith as we know it is not a democracy. In the Christian faith, the apostles were not elected, but were appointed and God is not a product of the consensual acts of like-minded people. He was and will be.. is the beginning and the end, the alpha and omega.
    The article suggests that, a moral and spiritual renewal of the individual is a prerequisite for a social overhaul. Though this is inarguable, the direction that is pointed out for it is. The article suggested recommitting our selves to the Christian values as a solution. Logical and traditional extension of such an approach is the imposition of faith-based initiatives into a system of governance. In a democracy, people have the right to choose their own vices and religion should not have a role in removing this freedom of choice. The most a religion should do is just take a stand. Indeed when one comes to think of it, the most precious gift that God has given mankind is the freedom of choice.
    Jerusalem a cradle of monotheism, a holy land for three major religions, a place where every one tries to out do everyone else in religious fervor, has been a war zone through out the known history. History is also dotted with shameful acts that have been perpetuated by people who tried to correct the values of their community by imposing their religious convictions. The Spanish inquisition, the crusades, the destruction of the Indian civilization in Latin America, slavery in the Americas, the witch-hunt of the middle ages, king Leopold’s atrocities in the Belgian Congo and the genocide in Serbia are excellent examples.
    Islam like Christianity holds love, kindness, humility and justice, as spiritual virtues. But when in the midst what was in reality was a societal moral decay, a group of people suggested that the solution to all ills was to go back to their religious ways, the Taliban were created. The rest is history. I am sure it has not escaped the author’s attention that the Islamic republics of the world are created with the identical pretext that was suggested in the article ‘who am I”. And nearly all are failed or failing states. Unless It is assumed that Christianity is different and its values are unique this fact it self should have dissuaded the article from intimating this approach.
    In many of the prosperous stable democracies in the world, love, kindness, truthfulness, justice are considered to be virtues and yet these societies do not consider them selves religious, Canada, Sweden, Norway…etc.

    I understand that the author is not suggesting that every body become a Christian. I agree a healthy exercise of moral renewal is welcome in a community any time. One might even try to use religious beliefs for this purpose, as suggested. However extreme caution is needed so that these attempts do not overflow into the political field. The author has made it clear that he is particularly addressing the Christian segment of the population. Nevertheless attempting to mobilize such a large segment using religious jabs is not with out danger. If a political progress is to be made out of such attempts, these values should be presented as universal virtues.

    As a Christian I will feel comfortable with a political leadership that acknowledges the presence of a higher being or perhaps even is religious. I am also comfortable with a political system that is bold enough to declare that the creator is alive and functional…like.. “In God we trust”. However by conceding to what the article suggested I couldn’t risk the emergence of a political leader that imposes on people what for him/her is an article of faith.

    If I may indulge into rhetoric, when I see eighteen/ nineteen year olds baring their chest to bullets in defiance of subjugation and in recognitions of their universal rights, when I see our aging on the streets saying “enough is enough”, I need no other proof to convince me that our people still possess the moral and spiritual integrity needed to shape our destiny.
    ______________________________________________

    My response to the above response:

    Hello:

    As I promised in my earlier shorter note I’m here trying to address in a little bit detail some of the issues that you’ve raised in your very thoughtful response to Part III of the articles:

    I’ll number my responses in such a way that I quote you first and try to clarify what I originally said or show where we go separate ways, that is where we disagree about certain issues where I think you got something wrong; I do not respond to everything you raised though for there are agreements between us too.

    Before I address the points you raised I also want to share somewhat critical comments that I’ve received from another reader and my short answer to that response for that response has something to say about what I want to point out below too.

    Here’s one of the other reactions:

    “Eth is a very complex country and cannot be identified with any single
    identity – Christianity or whatever else. Its history is also complex with
    dominationation, villification, glorification of one identity over
    another and so on. Christianity has certainly been one of the identities
    abused and misused not just misconstrued in Eth history. Is a Christian discourse
    good enough to solve our problems? I think yes. But I do not believe that
    the way we are now posed is good (or at least not so receptive) to such
    discourses. I guess we need a more inclusive discourse – and if you
    are talking about Ethiopians in general, you certainly need to find a
    unifying theme other than just Christianity. At the moment, I feel that
    Ethiopian Christianity is highly politicized and so perhaps not such a powerful
    ideal through which positive changes could be expected. To be honest with
    you, this rhetoric that Eth used to be a Christian state sounds really like
    a legend to me. Eth as a nation had never been Christian – if at all it
    were, it was only its rulers – and even then it’s because Ethiopian rulers
    are cunning politicians who can see the kind of opportunity an absolutist
    religion like Christianity can offer when twisted to serve their
    interests.

    I have no qualms about your ideas, but I feel they are
    kind of misplaced given the tensions that underlie not only Eth politics but
    also Eth history and its society deep inside. The idea of identities and
    its ramifications are more reified than even before in Eth. No matter how
    noble, ideals underpinned by a certain identity only will certainly be
    difficult to get across. Our future task will be to build up newer and
    more tolerant and inclusive identities that do not necessarily jump at one
    another in rivalry.”

    My short response to a respondent:

    1) I never believe or believed that Ethiopia is a Christian nation in any form. I never say that I believe such a preposterous thing. I included myself in some of the things I said there for a rhetorical strategy. Most of the time with the “if” clause, and that means I was not committed to what I was saying. But I was trying to show what so many for centuries have been saying and committed to believing so in order to show them what they say has been falsified many times over by how they live. The quote from Gal. was to show something like that.

    2) I was not arguing for the superiority of Christianity though I do believe that strongly. I was arguing for the resources that Christianity offers those who claim to live Christianly, for Christian values, to be more exact, and one does not need to be a Christian to see those values are intrinsically desirable, even atheists believe in them and live by them. That does not require a person to be a confessing Christian either. I even said Muslims would not avoid holding those values because those values are inherent to Christianity. Those values could be discovered apart from Christianity but then Christianity also says that that is possible because of human beings’ being God’s creation and because of their having been created as His image bearers. I did not go to that extent to explain all this but I suggested that as well.

    3) One central theme of Part III that ties all the three articles is proposing Christian values, if held by individuals and a community, to make a significant difference to the way a society would organize itself and for that who can argue against that? Can we argue, sincerely and honestly, that love of truth and truthfulness is a vice; personal integrity is a vice, etc etc? That was the point.

    The above are just some of the points that I wanted to clarify. The articles, esp., Part III, is multilayered and it’s easy to miss some of such points as the above but then it’s also obvious that I say certain things that cannot easily be missed. Its being multilayered is to see if I could provoke those who are more sophisticated and want to challenge some or all of the ideas there so that I can address them some other time.”

    This above response I think addresses some of your worries in your reaction too but then I turn to some remaining worries now:
    1) After referring to my suggestion about Christian values and how such values could play key roles by providing some solutions for the problems we go thru, you say: “Even though there is some truth in this allegation, it minimizes the immediate roles that lacks of education, leadership and good governance play in the perpetualization of our problems.” I think you seem to have missed the point that education, leadership and good governance would benefit if values such as Christianity offers are the foundations of such institutions. That does not mean a whole nation should become a Christian for such a way of thinking is an illusion, neither Christian nor is it right by any reasonable standard. I say nothing to that effect. I argued for values that are inherent to Christianity that are also universal and hence are good and desirable. Even some atheists argue for similar conclusions without believing in any God. When I treat the nature of values and Christian values in an extended manner, in a book project, for example, I’ll argue to show that no political leadership or any government would deliver its promises in any positive and desirable way without, at least, implicitly holding some such values, even if we agree not to call them Christian values for the sake of argument. The reason why such arguments for such values are underwritten by Christianity is simply because Christianity is a universal faith that is meant to address the whole of humanity with such universal values. If this latter claim seems wrong then the argument moves to another level and I’m more than willing to examine the pros and cons of such arguments. I was primarily trying to engage a society that claims that Christianity is one of the major faiths for many Ethiopians and I was only trying to show some implications of such claims and commitments.
    2) You say, again, “…it is my position that lack of education, leadership and virtual absence [of] democracy and good governance contribute at least as much if not more.” I agree with this qualification but for the preceding points that I’ve just shared. I want to ask you to show me which country in the world has flourished in democracy and with a sense of upholding human freedom and human rights and human dignity where Christianity has not been a major source of such values that are intrinsically desirable and hence universal. You mentioned some Western countries such as Canada, Sweden, and Norway etc but that only confirms to a great extent where they originally got those values from that have contributed to their current foundation about democracy, or whatever. I want you to include the USA and other European civilizations and show me where they got most of these ideals you think are examples of society’s where stable democracy does not require the Christian faith. I think I do not need to press this point further. But the point is this: none of the countries mentioned above are now Christian thru and thru but then it does not follow from this that they did not have any major Christian influence on their history. Mind you that Ethiopians claim to have a long and distinguished Christian history and my point has been to show that our lives have falsified our claims and I see a mismatch in our lives and our “nominal” faith commitments. Hence my diagnosis takes a spiritual/moral root very seriously and recommends what I think has been missing in the society as a foundational source of value, a spiritual/moral resource too.
    3) You also say, “I am sure it has not escaped the author’s attention that the Islamic republics of the world are created with the identical pretext that was suggested in the article ‘who am I”. And nearly all are failed or failing states. Unless It is assumed that Christianity is different and its values are unique this fact it self should have dissuaded the article from intimating this approach.” I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here for from what I say in the article I cannot think of anything that suggests that any value should be imposed like the Talibans would do, as you mentioned immediately preceding this quote. I’d still, though in the future, argue that Christianity is not another name of Islam in such a way that they both uphold one and the same values for it’s true that they both share much in common but then what I say nowhere suggests that imposing of Christian values follows from the Christian faith. You somewhere say, “Indeed when one comes to think of it, the most precious gift that God has given mankind is the freedom of choice.” I wonder if you’d not then accept that the concept of democracy, freedom etc presupposes holding values that are inherent to the Christian faith. I wonder if you’re aware of the nature of freedom Islam teaches and how similar or different it’s from what Christianity teaches. I think there is no escape from seeing the resources Christianity offers for democratic ideals even if we can separate the origin of democracy apart from Christianity. That does not still show that it has another source for Christianity teaches that such ideals, values could be discovered apart from the Bible.
    4) You also say, “In a democracy, people have the right to choose their own vices and religion should not have a role in removing this freedom of choice. The most a religion should do is just take a stand.” I’ve already said that it’s Christianity that teaches that the source of all freedom is from God and people have freedom even to deny God and His ways and His existence. Christianity still teaches that no imposition of religion is a Christian thing for God does not impose faith in Him on anyone and it’s too obvious for all to see that there are countless people who exercise their freedom not to believe in God. Democratic exercise of freedom just has its roots in that ultimate freedom people have to choose God or otherwise. This could be theologically debatable but not in the present context.
    5) You finish by saying, “If I may indulge into rhetoric, when I see eighteen/ nineteen year olds baring their chest to bullets in defiance of subjugation and in recognitions of their universal rights, when I see our aging on the streets saying “enough is enough”, I need no other proof to convince me that our people still possess the moral and spiritual integrity needed to shape our destiny.” I do not want to underestimate the values such people hold or want to deny that they have any moral values etc but then I can easily imagine that such acts could be explained in so many other ways. In Ethiopia we’ve witnessed countless people dying for this or that cause and from this I’d not conclude that such acts of courage have been the direct results of their reflective embodiment of the moral and spiritual values they, under normal circumstances hold. I’m skeptical in the extreme of the rhetorical point’s significance for some of the reasons that I’ve shared in the article and now above.
    6) I want to close by quoting my own critic’s point above as part of an explanation why politicians have wanted to use Christianity in Ethiopia as a means for their political ends: “Eth as a nation had never been Christian – if at all it were, it was only its rulers – and even then it’s because Ethiopian rulers
    are cunning politicians who can see the kind of opportunity an absolutist
    religion like Christianity can offer when twisted to serve their
    interests.”

    I hope that the above clarifications and responses would be of some help in sharing where I come from and where I mean to go with future possible projects as I’m trying to do something in these small yet inadequate reflections that I’ve tried to share with others.

    Many thanks, once again, for taking your time and helping me to clarify my thoughts.

    Best,

    Alethia”

    ____________________________________________________

  4. Some thoughts on Christianity and Democracy.

    Many beliefs, practices and philosophies have crossed countries of the world since time began through war, travel and trade. In most instances, these beliefs and practices have left their mark on societies. Like wise Religions like Christianity and Islam have left their influence in many cultures. But then again, since we agree the “Christian values” are universal values, their acceptance by cultures does is not a proof of the influence of Christianity.

    I consider my self a sincere Christian there for I will try to choose my words carefully. In my opinion if any thing, Christianity in the earlier times has been the enemy of democracy. It has been a means of legitimizing oppressive rules and I do not say this lightly. Yes, many of the current democracies have considerable amount “Christian values” in their present societies. But it is also true that their democratization coincides with their moving away from dogmatic religious influences in their civic administration. Had it not been for this separation of state and religion (the more extreme form of our discussion here) none of the so-called Christian countries would be democracies. And indeed the progress of democratic principles in current times is tied with the separation of dogmatic belief be it religion or other, from state and governance.

    The example I cited particularly Sweden in my view, have has never been a Christian nations from the time of the Viking up to the present day. Though many denominations have tried to exert dominance, the present day church attendance in low single digit is telling. In fact in my own experience I have never seen a more Godless people. Norway is a much more controversial example since it actually has a state religion. Japan and India are examples of successful democracies that are not Christian in any shape or form. Israel is a democracy that has a political philosophy, which can actually be termed anti-Christian. The birthplace of Athenian democracy ancient Greek was far removed from the Christian faith. Present day Turkey, the handy work of Kemal Ata-Turk, is a vibrant democracy while at the same time being a cradle of Islam. South Korea with a high development index is an example of a flourishing democracy. The most successful democracy in our continent is South Africa (where I lived for some time) while embracing the values, which we called “Christian”, their primary faith is based on an indigenous religious practice that is anchored in the “spirit of their ancestors”. The French revolution based on the concepts of citizen ship, democracy, and inalienable rights not tainted by religion. So yes it is possible to have non-Christian democracies.

    If Christianity were the driving force, Syria, Ethiopia, Tsarist Russia would have been democracies long before any one else. When failure of religion is brought up there, is a usual practice of attempting to separate religion and the actual faith. I do not have much to say in the face of such non-winnable argument.

    I will try to give you my reactions to your replay. For the sake of convenience, I will put your statements in quote and then will add mine in italics. Like I said I agree with most of what you said and I am doing this just to clarify my statement.

    1. “I think you seem to have missed the point that education, leadership and good governance would benefit if values such as Christianity offers are the foundations of such institutions”. This is the question of the “The egg or the chicken?.” You believe that Christian values will benefit democratic institutions. Which is true if you have the institution. But I believe you will not have those democratic set ups or institution in the first place if the society is guided by religions principles.

    2. “in a book project, for example, I’ll argue to show that no political leadership or any government would deliver its promises in any positive and desirable way without, at least, implicitly holding some such values, even if we agree not to call them Christian values for the sake of argument”. Yes you are right here. But most people will say the political leadership follows the values you call Christian not because they are Christian but because they are human. A woman loves and cares for her child whether she is Hindu, Christian, atheist or other. In the same manner a family and community nourishes each other naturally. These values may have nothing to do with Christianity but may have everything to do with GOD. And I know you will agree that God is not an exclusive property of Christians.
    “The reason why such arguments for such values are underwritten by Christianity is simply because Christianity is a universal faith “. Only an uncompromising Christian will dare to declare this. …. I say this lightly I do not mean to offend.
    3. You say, again, “…it is my position that lack of education, leadership and virtual absence [of] democracy and good governance contribute at least as much if not contributed to their current foundation about democracy, or whatever. I want you to include the USA and other European civilizations”. I have given some examples above. If we just take the case of the USA, The USA started to formulated democratic principles the when they started to defy the endorsements of the Christian religion and started to ask questions. As I am sure you are aware even though there is a strong presence of Christian values in their system of governance there is also a constant attempt to totally separate state and religion, which started by the first amendment. The fact that the amendment was the first one tells me how important it was. The government still maintains that the relation ship is “purely ceremonial and rhetorical”. The “stated does not conform to any doctrine other than its own.” As James Madison wrote to the Danbury Baptists “practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States” (1811 letter to Baptist Churches). I know we are not really talking about this particular issue here but I think it has some relevence to our dialoge…as examples are more illutrative when they are extreme.

    4. You also say, “I am sure it has not escaped the author’s attention that the Islamic republics of the world are created with the identical pretext that was suggested in the article ‘who am I”. And nearly all are failed or failing states. Unless It is assumed that Christianity is different and its values are unique this fact it self should have dissuaded the article from intimating this approach.” I’m not sure what you’re trying to say here”. What I am trying to say her is the Taliban movement is the mirror image of what you have suggested. The Taliban tried to correct the ills of their society by reclaiming their religious beliefs with are primarily, love, humility, truthfulness, and justice. They got their mass support and just like all religious movement be it Christian Moslem or otherwise, it turned in to system of subjugation. “I’d still, though in the future, argue that Christianity is not another name of Islam”. Yes I agree. However Christianity has not always been that idyllic religion that many people preach.

    5 You somewhere say, “Indeed when one comes to think of it, the most precious gift that God has given mankind is the freedom of choice.” I wonder if you’d not then accept that the concept of democracy, freedom etc presupposes holding values that are inherent to the Christian faith.” You are right in a way here, but the analogy stops right there since, we had or have not part in formulating the rules by which we want to be governed or in electing our leaders.
    I wonder if you’re aware of the nature of freedom Islam teaches and how similar or different it’s from what Christianity teaches’. I have tried to educate my self on Islam and the more I know the similarities astound me. Remember that Christianity had a 600-year advantage over Islam. If you truly really want to compare Islam and Christianity, go back 600 years in the 15th century Christianity and examine it. I assure you, you will not find it to your liking. I submit to you that more people have died by expansion of Christianity than Islam.
    6 “I think there is no escape from seeing the resources Christianity offers for democratic ideals even if we can separate the origin of democracy apart from Christianity.” I have no objection to this. “That does not still show that it has another source for Christianity teaches that such ideals, values could be discovered apart from the Bible”. The bible is a relatively young book. Much has been written about these values long before the Old Testament was composed between 300-50 BC.
    7. political ends: “Eth as a nation had never been Christian – if at all it were, it was only its rulers – and even then it’s because Ethiopian rulers
    are cunning politicians who can see the kind of opportunity an absolutist
    religion like Christianity can offer when twisted to serve their
    interests.” Yes this is inevitable and that is why I believe that these values need not be promoted as Christian values, but as human values. The subtle promotion of Christian values as a means of improving civic rule will eventually grow into a strategy of political manipulation. This is particularly true the current trend of radicalization of both the Christian and Islam faith in Ethiopia.

    Take care, Will defiantly pick your book up when it comes out!.. good luck with it.

    Daniel
    _______________________________________________________

    Response to D. Assefa:

    I think there are some areas of disagreement between my respondent and myself about which I want to say something by way of further clarifications with the hope that this additional clarification will help us see the points that I’ve been trying to communicate all along, both in my posts and earlier response.
    1. General points about the relationship between Christian values and democratic values and institutions and about the historical examples that my respondent has provided: I do not hold the following view: that all Western democracies have inherited every single democratic values from an explicit Christian commitment or something like that. I never said that nor am I saying that now either. I maintained this, following, thought in my earlier response and one can infer what I was trying to communicate in Part III of my article likewise: Western democracies such as the US, Canada, Sweden, Norway, or other such societies have a prominent Christian influence in their histories in the past in such a way that Christianity has played a role in these societies in the sense of positively shaping and influencing the values that underwrite such as human rights, human dignity, and core democratic values that any democratic society needs for its flourishing. This does not mean that these societies at the present period in history are explicitly Christian and I’ve denied such a conclusion in my previous response too. This is an empirical claim and one can falsify it by providing empirical claims that contradict it as my respondent tried to do which I think is insightful. But we need a qualification to accept such a challenge as I point out in the following point.
    2. If Christian values that we’re debating about are universal, as we seem to agree, and if Christianity allows for such values to be discoverable independent of explicit Christian commitments in counties where Christian influence is minimal or none (e.g. Japan, Turkey, etc), that does not undermine my claim that Christian values can still play a role that I claim they can play in the coming into existence and subsequent sustenance of such desirable values no matter how such values have been discovered. The fact that Christian values can be recognized for what they are, as intrinsically good and desirable, that only confirms my point in such a way that they are universal and should be upheld as such even in Ethiopia if we mean to benefit from such universally shared values where even a large segment of the population claims to be Christian.
    3. A crucial point to bear in mind: in my writings and responses I never referred to Christianity in its various forms as it’s historically been shaped like Orthodox, Protestant, and Catholic. I’m not focusing on the divisions that constitute the Christian tradition as a whole. My point has not been about churches and traditions, the good and bad historical incidents that have been promoted or embodied by this or that group. Not at all. I’ve been trying to focus on the core Christian values all those who claim to follow Jesus of Nazareth claim to be core Christian values that do not have specific bearings on respective Church traditions or historical contingencies. Having such an understanding would help minimize possible misunderstandings in such a way that we do not need to get bogged down in divisions among Christians since my focus is on what all Christians hold in common.
    4. My respondent has shared a concern that I think is a legitimate one as follows: if we promote Christianity as a religion or as a faith commitment and encourage such a religion to dictate the values of political leadership and governance in general that would bring about the tragic example of religion playing a role in ways that reminds us of what the Taliban has done and that should be resisted by all means. I’ve already responded to this concern but then I want to add the following: I never argued that we should promote one religion, such as Christianity, or whatever religion, in Ethiopia in any sense of the word. I do not think such a thing should be done at all for reasons that I’d not have space to provide detailed responses here. I tried to appeal to the Christian population in Ethiopia that claims its identity having been heavily influenced by Christianity and accordingly have tired to point out that if such a large segment of the society lives by such universal and intrinsically desirable values that Christianity teaches we would never have seen all the tragic episodes in our nation’s history that have come to define us as a society. Values, good or bad, that we hold, if we really, truly hold them play key roles in our lives in such a way that what we show practically in our daily lives show what we embody and given Ethiopia’s long history of Christian claims we should not have been where we are now in so many ways. The point, I hope, has been clear and it’s this: we, perhaps, the majority of Ethiopians that is those who claim that we are Christians are Christians only in name. I need to see an argument that shows what I’m saying is wrong with or without any qualification and such a correction will be a step forward in our self-understanding that begins a process of knowing oneself and ourselves, individually and collectively.
    5. I do believe in the separation of state and religion as my respondent also does. I think that Christianity allows for any person of any religious persuasion or without any religion, for that matter, could be a political leader, in government. As I pointed out in my previous response this is so because God, as Christians understand God, does not impose faith in Him without a person exercising his freedom, in some sense, in choosing to believing in God. Generally, I do not have any desire for any state to take a side on the side of one religion or the other in the sense of promoting one religion and suppressing others. Nothing from what I’ve said all along implies that any state is allowed or encouraged to do such a promotion of one religion and suppress others. I do not have space here to say what religion is, what a faith commitment is, and how such things are related to the way we should live our lives in light of what science and philosophy and others sources of knowledge teach us who we are and how we should live. That is a huge topic for another day.
    I want to take this opportunity to thank my respondent, Daniel, for taking time and providing such thought-provoking responses. My hope is that others, fellow Ethiopians, will also be part of this dialogue and add their contributions to the dialogue.

    Many thanks,

    Alethia

Leave a Reply