Revolutionary Democracy: A Fitting Worldview for Economic &

Political Development of Ethiopia

Adal Isaw
[email protected]
May 15, 2010
Almost all Ethiopian political parties except EPRDF adopt liberalism as their
political ideology. And these political parties are looking forward to put liberalism at
work, if and when theyre endowed with the political power to do so. Liberalism, they
argue, is the ideology in need to build a middle-income democratic Ethiopia. In contrast,
EPRDF contends, that the arduous work to build a middle-income democratic Ethiopia
will be nearly impossible; one, if and when it is based on a liberal worldview that favors
the unfair and controlling economic and political interest of the Western world; and two,
if and when it is based on economic and political philosophy that exaggerates the
inalienable rights of a self-seeking individual.
The movement by the Western world to make liberalism appear more desirable
than any other conceivable economic and political worldview has succeeded by
default. In other words, if ideological success is merely measured by the prevalence of a
political and economic worldview, then liberalism has become the most successful
modern ideology of our interconnected world. With the collapse of the so called
communist blocks of Eastern European countries, the dominance of liberalism has even
become all the more thoroughgoingso much so, a renowned American political
scientist daringly claimed that ideological struggles, as we know them in the past, have
come to an end. Liberalism, Fukiyama affirmed, has triumphed.[1]
Disproving Fukiyama, the struggle between ideologies lives and in fact has
become vibrant to a degree, even in Ethiopiaa country that barely entered the global
ideological marketwhere used and a sort of newly formulated ideologies are spoken for
sale. As youre reading this article, the Ethiopian people are still shopping from political
parties eager to sell their ideologies in exchange for political power. EPRDF is on one
side selling its own sort of brand-new Ethiopian-born revolutionary democratic
worldview, while the rest of the political parties are on the other side, selling a Eurocentric worldview of liberalism.
What is liberalism or liberal outlook anyways? And what makes revolutionary
democracy a fitting worldview for economic and political development of
Ethiopia? Liberalism, according to Britannica Concise Encyclopedia is a political and
economic doctrine that emphasizes the rights and freedoms of the individual and the need
to limit the powers of government. For over three hundred years, liberalism has been
the most fundamental experience of Western political civilization. And its fundamental
credo is comprised of individualism, civil rights, private ownership, and

pluralism. Liberalism is inseparable from capitalisman economic system that is known

for having defined the Western and non-Western countries economic and political
relations for centuries. Strictly speaking, liberalism is also more than a Euro-centric
political-economy; it is a way of life that the Western world wants to export to as many
countries as it canwith or without the consent of a people at the receiving end.
The underlying ideas of liberalism were given formal articulation by Thomas
Hobbes and John Locke. Locke gave the most eloquent articulation of liberalism in
his Second Treaties on Civil Government, published in 1690 but written earlier. For
Locke, the individual is at the center of an economic and political universe. He is free,
equal, and self-governing. He has the right to his body and to his life. And these rights
to his body and to his life constitute the most inalienable form of property.[2]
Lockes emphasis on individual rights goes even further asserting that property rights
of the individual predate the state and that theyre absolutely immune from state
interference. In other words, according to Locke, any legitimate government is limited
by individual rights of those it has been created to serve. An important consequence of
this very bold argument is that rights are always individual rights, and that the community,
or society as a whole, has no rights what so ever. Apart from the individual that comprise
it, according to Locke, the community is simply an abstracted personification with no
life, moral and political standing.[3] This is the ideological underpin of liberalism that
almost all Ethiopian political parties except EPRDF adhere to and it is very troubling.
A country that badly needs a collective effort for its political and economic
development should not subscribe to impractical and hypothetical worldview of
liberalism that demeans and rejects the collective rights of a people. For Ethiopiaa
country of diverse nations and nationalities, this type of unmitigated individualism is a
recipe for disaster. Ethiopia will not arduously work itself to become a democratic
middle-income country, built on a society of self-seeking individuals, each pursuing
disparate objectives of the mind, lacking a commonly desirable master plan of an
Ethiopian purpose.
A society of self-seeking individuals, each pursuing disparate objectives of the
mind, lacking a commonly held desirable plan, according to liberals is also the basis for
the undesigned nature of a capitalist economic system. For example, the Scottish
liberal Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations argued that, the spontaneous actions of
innumerable separate individuals each pursuing their personal benefit accreted to
astonishingly efficient, prosperous and free forms of human association.[4]
Smiths aforementioned assertion is beyond paradoxical. How is it possible for a
selfish private vice of separate individuals transcend into a public virtue of kindly free
forms of human association? Had Smiths assertions were true about the spontaneous
actions of separate individuals, would America have 400 of its citizens spontaneously
controlling 1.8 trillion dollars of its wealth? Or, would America have six of its major
banks spontaneously controlling 60% of its GNP? These are the few from the many
problems that liberalism continues to create unabated in our interconnected world.[5]

Indeed; liberalism comes with many daunting problems and it has been revised to
a degree so that the problems that it keeps creating are ameliorated now and then through
major policy implementations. Wounded by the Great Depression, Keynesian economics
and the New Deal, classical liberalism may not recover from its wounds, but it has surely
given ways to variety of revisionist liberalismwelfare liberalism, utilitarianism and
etc. Nevertheless, revisionist liberalism does not stand to discredit property rights and
individualism that classical liberalism argues for with passion, since individualism and
property rights are principles that unify liberals of all varieties. It is therefore up to the
revolutionary democrats including this writer, to eloquently refute a liberal worldview
that overemphasizes the rights of an individual and demeans the collective rights of a
people, especially as it relates to property and ownership rights, for example of land.
The Ethiopian revolutionary democrats principled argument about land goes
pretty much as follows: By virtue of being naturally immune from becoming a social
product that one invests or works to create, land in Ethiopia is in its own singular class of
an absolute social property. Land is also a natural given to all those who happen to reside
on it, and from which the complete necessities of what life demands can be produced to
benefit the great many of them. Succinctly put, Ethiopias land is not a social product and
cannot be claimed as an absolute property by any individual anywhere anytime. In fact,
even a given social product with a clear rightful owner cannot for that matter be claimed
as an absolute property, by who ever happens to invest and work on it, and here is the
reason why, revolutionary democrats argue.[6]
Consider a hermit inventor working alone in his garage without any assistance,
on a project to invent a highly sophisticated braking system for a fast car. Can you
imagine this inventor to be unaware of the vast quantity of social knowledge on a brakesystem for fast cars? Of course not; this said hermit inventor would have no clue about
creating a new braking system, had it not for all the accumulated social knowledge that
he had received in the first place. Even what this hermit inventor discovers is, therefore,
not a private creation. It is, in a fundamental sense a social product, and any absolute
claim of ownership on the new braking system by the hermit inventor is thus groundless,
making the idea of self-seeking, self-contained, atomized and hermit individuals creating
property out of themselves, unconnected and unindebted to the greater society, quite
absurd.[7]
As it has been the case for almost two decades, the creation of property and the
kind of ownership right that should be ascribed to it is one of the issues that starkly
differentiate the revolutionary democrats of Ethiopia from their liberal counterparts. The
EPRDF led government has been leasing land in manners that incorporates its agro-led
economic development plan and the plan is working marvelously. Ethiopia has registered
double digit development figures year after year and it is now the fifth fastest growing
economy in the entire world.[8] This very fact should refute the liberal claim about how
selling Ethiopias land creates incentive for business and leasing it curtails economic
growth. Leasing it for suitable years instead of buying land has not curtailed the interest
of a prospective investor in Ethiopia and the evidence attests to this fact. Billion dollars

worth of investment is taking hold on leased land in Ethiopia and it is the uncontested
fact.
Ethiopian liberals who advocate for scrapping the present land policy consider
land much like any other property that an individual is entitled to own in absolute
terms. Their rationale mimics the rationale of John Locke and Adam Smiththe two
renowned classical European liberals. The Ethiopian liberals have merely adopted
Lockes and Smiths argument on property, ownership and the role that an exaggerated
individual has on creating wealth and prosperity. In so doing, much like John Locke and
Adam Smith, the Ethiopian liberals see the temple of political and economic development
in the ideological spirit of the exaggerated individual. And for this reason they stand to
demean, reject, or second-guess the collective rights of a community, society, nations,
nationalities or the Ethiopian people at large.
The contrast between Ethiopian liberals and the revolutionary democrats on how
to develop Ethiopia into a middle income democratic country is
substantive. Nonetheless, the alternative worldview being expressed by revolutionary
democrats is not at all against most of the tenets that liberal democracy and its market
system have to offer. Revolutionary democrats believe in the free association of
individuals, and the coming to life of more than 90 disparate Ethiopian political parties
attests to this fact that it is so. They believe in free but reasonably restrained,
revolutionized and modern efficient market system, and the advent of the Ethiopian
Commodity Exchange proves that it the case. Most importantly, revolutionary democrats
believe in democracygovernment of the people, by the people, for the people,
convinced in the ability of nations and nationalities of Ethiopia to self-govern themselves
as they see it fit. In fact, it is the revolutionary democrats that have given in practice the
real, true and essential meaning of what democracy is.
Democracy is the ultimate means to empower people more than it is the means to
empower the individual to reign supreme over the collective shoulders of a people. The
rights of an individual should not at all tramp the collective rights of a people. And for
this reason, the revolutionary democrats worldview of Ethiopia incorporates only those
tenets suitable to Ethiopias economic, political and social realities, with the focus to
strengthen the collective democratic and economic rights of the Ethiopian people. This
is just a simple proposition as far as revolutionary democrats are concerned. Ethiopia is
a country of many nations and nationalities, and by virtue of this very fact, the rights of
nations and nationalities should reign supreme in contrast to any unreasonable,
superfluous and exaggerated individual rights. Seen from this angle, democratization
under Ethiopian context is therefore the summation of a political and an economic act to
empower the nations and nationalities of Ethiopia, and its less of an act to bring God or
Goddess out of a self-seeking Ethiopian soul.
Revolutionary democracy rejects the philosophy of aggrandizing the individual
as if he or she, by uncoordinated design, is the source of economic and political
development. Political and economic development is the result of a planned collective
effort, not the result of a spontaneous interaction of self-seeking individuals. For all these

aforementioned reasons then, revolutionary democrats are cognizant of the fact that the
arduous work to build a middle income democratic Ethiopia will be nearly impossible;
one, if and when it is based on a liberal worldview that favors the unfair and controlling
economic and political interest of the Western world; and two, if and when it is based on
economic and political philosophy that exaggerates the inalienable rights of a self-seeking
individual.

Francis Fukiyama, The End of History? The Public Interest, Summer 1989 and responses in Winter 1989
issue. Also see his The End of History and the Last Man (New York: Free Press, 1992).
[2]
See Peter Laslett, ed., Two Treaties of Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960).
[3]
Margaret Thatcher of England is known for arguing tirelessly on behalf of this argument, the Republican Partys
reaction to Hillary Clinton It takes a village to raise a child was also based on denigrating the role of a community
in raising a child.
[4]
Wealth of Nations, ed. Bruce Mazlish (New York: Bobbs-Merrill, Library of Liberal Arts, 1961) Book 4.
[5]
See Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power by G. Williams Domhoff, UCSB. For quick reference check
out http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/ and play with numbers to see how frightening the divide in income
has become. See also Megabanks: The Banking Oligarchy That Controls Assets Equivalent To 60% Of Americas
GDP by PrizonPlanet.
[6]
For detailed explanation, see Ethiopias Land is not a Saleable Social Product, by Adal Isaw February 20, 2008,
check archives of Aiga Forum or Ethio Hebre Zema
[7]
For detailed explanation, see Ethiopias Land is not a Saleable Social Product by Adal Isaw February 20, 2008,
check archives of Aiga Forum or Ethio Hebre Zema.
[1]

[8]

See the new global economic forecast released by The Economist magazine for the year 2010.

Revolutionary Democracy Vs. Liberal Democracy:

A Belated Reply to Yosyas Kifleyesuss Article

Adal Isaw
[email protected]
June 13, 2010
Its heartwarming to have a trickle down version of an ideological
debate on Aiga Forum, especially when it seriously concerns our beloved
countryEthiopia. Civilly done, debates of the various kinds benefit a country
such us ours to have a well-informed citizenry. Well-informed citizenry in turn
facilitates for a knowledge-based vote to adjudicate a democratic contest
between acutely differing political parties. The party that wins the heart, mind
and interest of a well-informed citizenry in turn becomes the dependable
bastion of a country that the well-informed citizenry calls home. And this kind

of democratic and knowledge nourishing process should be encouraged, for

all the time to come and for the good of Ethiopias economic, political and
social life.
Not all ideological debates are premised on substantive points of
contentions. Some ideological debates may tend to employ ad hominem
the kind that attack the person or the political party thats making the
argument. Some debates go off on a tangent guided by conspiracy theory, to
question the opponents motive instead of focusing on the argument being
made. And some debates on political ideology are simply out of touch, and
there are even some more with many more defining characteristics.
Great ideological debates are born to be raised by those debaters or
political parties who have done their homework thoroughly. Many more
qualities may be afforded to debaters, but for the purpose of this piece, great
debaters are made from great readers, listeners, and those who tolerate
ideological viewpoints completely contrary to theirs. Tolerating viewpoints
other than ours induces in us the positive capacity contrary to that which
induces hate and resentment. In other words, truthfully tolerating viewpoints
other than ours brings sanity to our thinking and civility to the way how we
argue against ideas that we think are utterly flawed. Hate, resentment and a
complete doubt in the sincerity of those who hold views other than ours
inevitably kill the spirit of great debates even before its inception.
With this in mind, I welcome Kifleyesuss scribbled debate on Aiga
Forum, titled, Bashing Liberalism: Can Revolutionary Democracy Be
Democratic Without Espousing Liberalism? For the purpose of clarity, I find
it imperative to quote Kifleyesuss introductory statement and his core
argument. His introductory paragraph goes as follows: I have been following
the recent debates in the run up to the 2010 elections in Ethiopia. It is sad to
observe that most, if not all, opposition politicians seem to be unable to
defend liberalism from the ideological attacks of EPRDF politicians. Their
inability was most visible when Lidetu Ayalew, the usually witty and gifted
orator, could not respond well to Bereket Simons characterization of the
EDPs (and other opposition parties) views on liberalism as an invitation to
western domination. What is even more saddening is that the EPRDF and its
acolytes including one Adal Isaw attack liberalism as a recipe for disaster in the
Ethiopian context

Now lets read Kifleyesuss core argument, bearing in mind the content
of his introductory paragraph, and, his core argument goes as follows: The
attack on liberalism is based on confusing two terms: liberalism and neoliberalism. I do not think that the EPRDF or its supporters [are] unaware of the
distinction between these two terms. Adal Isaws piece on Aigaforum.com
clearly shows that he is aware of the historical and philosophical roots of
liberalism as his references to Hobbes and Locke testify. The simple
explanation of the confusion is thus that there is a deliberate attempt to
befuddle the debate and push an agenda that the EPRDF is not comfortable to
pursue publicly.
Kifleyesuss piece shows that he failed to do his homework thoroughly,
since he never made the concerted effort to refute the major points that a
revolutionary democrat raises to criticize liberalism. He didnt defend the
excessive and superfluous individualism, which is being espoused by Ethiopian
liberals in relation to the greater issue of economic and political development
of Ethiopia. In addition, his defense of liberalism might have benefited a bit
more or less, had he read my article thoroughly between the lines. Instead,
what Kifleyesus did in his piece is to let his readers know, first and foremost,
how saddening it was to hear and read EPRDF, Bereket Simon and the
acolyte Adal Isaw bashing and attacking liberalism. Kifleyesus didnt even
spare the usually witty and gifted orator Ato. Lidetu Ayalew, for his
inability [to] respond well to Bereket Simons characterization
ofliberalism
The fact that Kifleyesus is lashing out on Ato. Lidetu Ayalew and
opposition politicians for their inability to defend liberalism is tacitly telling
a smile-inducing story about Kifleyesus himself. Kifleyesus is spelling to his
readers that he would have done a better job of defending liberalism had he
been the one in attendance during the debate back home in Ethiopia. But the
mere fact is, after his sad-riddled narrative of a paragraph or two, and after he
gave his readers the allusion that he would have been best suited to refute
EPRDF, Bereket Simon and Adal Isaws attack on liberalism, Kifleyesus
completely failed, as I have mentioned earlier, to even touch let alone address
the specific credos of liberalism that EPRDF, Bereket Simon and this writer
criticized.
What are the main points in his core argument that Kifleyesus raises in
hope to deflect legitimate and very strong criticisms of liberalism? One of his

core points of argument asserts that the attack on liberalism is based on

confusing two terms: liberalism and neo-liberalism. Kifleyesus goes in detail
to inform his readers the difference between liberalism and neo-liberalism,
and in between, he completely overlooks that the difference if any is not
ideological. In fact, the two words finally end up confusing Kifleyesus and here
is how.
Neo-liberalism is mainly a re-invented or rehashed grandiose economic
movement of liberalism. Irrespective of its huge reach, neo-liberalism is
nonetheless one of the inborn varieties that liberalism has given birth under
its own self-induced economic and political labor. Kifleyesus should have read
my article thoroughly before making semantics part of the gist of his defense
of liberalism. In my piece, Revolutionary Democracy: A Fitting Worldview for
Economic & Political development of Ethiopia, I have stated clearly that
liberalism comes with many daunting problems and it has been revised to
a degree so that the problems that it keeps creating are ameliorated now and
then through major policy implementations.
Neo-liberalism is a major policy implementation and depending on the
countries it is taking hold, it is either thoroughly an economic movement as in
Britain under Margret Thatcher, or an economic and social movement as in
America under Ronald Regan. And its ideology is liberalism of the kind that
John Locke and Adam Smith espoused. But most importantly, neo-liberalism
is a well-known tool of our modern times, used by the Western powers to
swindle a great deal of resources from their own people and also from people
in under developed and developing countries. How do they do it? By
simply prescribing a major set of unfair and controlling micro-economic policy
changes, surnamed liberalization.
Privatization of the economy; deregulation of the market; downsizing
of the public sector; selling state owned enterprise; letting the market
determine the price of goods and services including essential utilities; reducing
government spending on social services and shrinking the size of government
agencies, and dwindling the number of people employed by government
agencies, are major policy prescription in the name of liberalizing the
economic sector of a country, to guarantee the rights and freedoms of the
individual by limiting the powers of government. Kifleyesus is assuming that
all these economic and political courses of action of neo-liberalism are done
in an ideological vacuum, and hes absolutely wrong.

Neo-liberalism uses the ideological arguments of both Locke and Smith

to restructure the political and economic fabric of a society into what classical
liberal worldview espouses. Deregulating the market; letting the market
determine the price of goods and services including essential utilities, are
courses of actions tantamount to letting The Invisible Hand run the economy
(Adam Smith). Meanwhile, privatizing the economy; selling state owned
enterprise; downsizing the public sector and shrinking the size of government
agencies are actions born out of the womb of a liberal ideology, to limit the
power of government in favor of the individual rights of those it has been
created to serve (John Locke). Therefore, to claim disparateness between
liberalism and neo-liberalism is to attempt to sell a real bird with no
wings. Metaphorically speaking, neo-liberalism is one wing among variety of
wings of the bird that I call liberalism. And this specific wing has helped
liberalism to crash-land in many places of our world, allowing us to observe
meticulously what to buy and what not to buy in the open market of
ideologies.
Tightly coupled with individualism and the absolute right to property,
neo-liberalism in general comes as a measurable quantity of major policy
undertaking. Individualism and the absolute right to property, two of
liberalisms credos that we revolutionary democrats criticize with cogency, are
adhered with similar passion and authenticity by modern day neo-liberals, for
example, the late Ronald Regan and Margaret Thatcher of England. In fact,
Neo-liberalism is sometimes called Thatcherism, and Thatcher, following the
ideological footstep of her countrymanJohn Locke, is a known opponent of
anything social and communal.
Kifleyesus knows this to be the case, but he would anyway like to
theorize that the apparent confusion of these two words came from a
deliberate attempt to befuddle the debate and push an agenda that the EPRDF
is not comfortable to pursue publicly. This line of argument is what I called
earlier the kind that attacks the assumed characteristic of the person or the
political party thats making the argument. This part of Kifleyesus argument is
not at all intended to intelligently refute the argument that EPRDF and or this
writer are making. It simply is an argument that goes tangent guided by
conspiracy theory, to bring to light an utterly unfounded intent of EPRDF and
its acolytes.

Furthermore, a careful reading of my piece would have answered

Kifleyesus primary question that whether ...Revolutionary Democracy
[can] Be Democratic Without Espousing Liberalism? As I have pointed in my
article, the alternative worldview being expressed by revolutionary democrats
is not at all against most of the tenets that liberal democracy and its market
system have to offer. Revolutionary democracy believes in the free
association of individuals, and the coming to life of more than 90 disparate
Ethiopian political parties attests to this fact that it is so. Revolutionary
democracy propagates for free but reasonably restrained, revolutionized and
modern efficient market system, and the advent of the Ethiopian Commodity
Exchange proves that it the case. Most importantly, revolutionary democracy
believes in democracygovernment of the people, by the people, for the
people, convinced in the ability of nations and nationalities of Ethiopia to selfgovern themselves as they see it fit. For this reason, it is revolutionary
democracy that has given in practice the real, true and essential meaning of
what democracy is; it can be cogently argued.
The major argument in my piece in part is based against a liberal
ideology that favors the unfair and controlling economic and political interest
of the Western world. And this ideology has an overreaching contemporary
tool called neo-liberalismwith a pinpointed goal to remove all barriers to
commerce and to privatize all available services and resources including
water. This grandiose plan of economic globalization is welcomed by
Ethiopian liberals who seem to know less that the whole scheme unfairly
benefits the developed Western powers more so than any other country
including ours.
Now that we have established the hand in glove nature of neoliberalism and liberalism, a concerned and well-informed Ethiopian will
recognize, that the arduous work to build a middle-income democratic
Ethiopia will be nearly impossible; one, if and when it is based on a liberal
worldview that favors the unfair and controlling economic and political
interest of the Western world; and two, if and when it is based on economic
and political philosophy that exaggerates the inalienable rights of a selfseeking individual to wealth.
The wealth that our beloved Ethiopia accrues is produced through
social interdependence and common efforts. Let alone how we Ethiopians
farm, manufacture, buy, own, sell and consume, even the way how we

ideologically agree and disagree with each other are part of our social
existence. Therefore, to isolate property and the ownership right that is
ascribed to it in a fashion that stresses, exaggerates, and dramatizes the right
of a single individual will be a wildly improbable faulty doctrine to
follow. Because the I and mine culture and ideology will make some
among us to view ownership rights as unrelated to social life. And such a path
for sure will encourage contemporary and future Ethiopian entrepreneurs to
consider their property as their own absolute wealth, produced and acquired
in some fictional private space they have created behind the Ethiopian
society. This is precisely part of the liberal credo that we revolutionary
democrats criticize, to build a middle-income democratic society premised on
a cohesive communal ethos.

Revolutionary Democracy Assumes Wrong, Acts

Faulty
In his view point piece headlined, Why the Neoliberals Go Wrong on the EPRDF (Volume 14, Number
723, March 9, 2014) Merkeb Negash accused me of being neoliberal as if I was trying to diagnose the
EPRDF through the neoliberal lab. So I found it necessary to reiterate the fundamental premise to him.
Merkeb reminds me of Sam Walter Fosss poem called the calf paththat tells the story of a calf and his
allegation of my neoliberalism means that he is following the well-trodden calf-path. I hope that he will not
continue down this route by labelling as neoliberal anyone with a different perspective or philosophy. His
lamentation for democracy in the previous piece obscured the notion of revolutionary democracy; from Che
Guevaras die for liberty to vanguardism or in defence of the Leviathan.
I think that every economy that is structured and function contrary to the Washington Consensus cannot
necessarily be described as developmental in nature. This would take us back to the other classical debate
over the market-state nexus. The debate should not be rolling back the state as neoliberals led by Margaret
Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, in the 1980s and 1990s cried out for or to simply bring the state back in.
No doubt that in a poor economy with a fragile market, weak private sector and poor infrastructure,the state
has a key role to play in the allocation of resources, implementation of policies and the design the outcomes.
To denounce it and calling to shy away or downsize it as a regulatory night watchman state or enabling
agent is to misread how the worlds great economies were built and prospered.
The well-known Korean economist Ha-Joon Chang in hisbook, Kicking Away the Ladder, argues that
virtually all of todays developed countries including the champions of free trade and free markets, such as
Britain and the United States, became rich on the basis of policies that are contradictory to the neoliberal
orthodoxy espoused under the Washington Consensus. The miraculous economic growth achieved by East
Asian economies is also due to their adoption of heterodox economic policies that were contrary to the
Washington Consensus.

The problem of some ardent developmental state theorists and proponents is that they tend to see the state
as omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient with none of the limitations or failings exhibited by the market
itself. It is this statist nature of the proponents hindering a viable and critical diagnosis of the political
economy of the states.
Reading Merkebs piece, most would conclude that he is strongly statist in thought. He mentioned the
influential Marxist philosopher Antonio Gramsci in his theory of hegemony. His letter also focused on
making the state more repressively coercive and able to opt the various political and economic actors and
entities that make it effective and capable.
But conventional wisdom and history teaches us that modern states are not built from above, by top down
institutional mono-cropping, but from below, by political processes with interaction between social, political
and economic interests and groups along a tradition of strong central authority. The economist Daron
Acemoglu and the political scientist James Robinson in their book, Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power,
Prosperity and Povertyconclude that nations fail due to their inability to build inclusive political institutions.
They elucidate the reasons for the disparity of economic wealth among nations over the last two hundred
years or so.
Central to their theory is the link between political institutions and prosperity. Inclusive institutions are those
that enforce property rights, create a level playing field, and encourage investments in new technologies
and skills, and are conducive to economic growth than extractive economic institutions that are structured
to extract resources from the many by the few.
The other most important difference between Merkeb and myselfis the treatment of Nordic and Brazilgrowth
models as developmental states. This,from the outset,misses the logic of economic development and the
way that policies evolve as states integrate themselves into the global economic order.
Some argue that post-war Europe has shown examples of developmental states. Michael Loriaux in his
article, The French Developmental State as a Myth and Moral Ambition argues that France has a striking
resemblance to Japan when it comes to the basic building blocks of developmental states.Some also
include Finland and Austria.
In fact, there are debates as to the point at which a developmental state comes into being and intellectuals
like Thadika Mkandwire contend that the developmental state runs the risk of being tautological since it
presumes developmentalism through economic delivery and policy success. This is why Merkeb thinks that
every economy deviating from the neoliberal paradigm is developmental, a train of thought that is both
misleading and erroneous.
The Nordic growth model is very different from what Chalmers Johnson, the scholar who first coined the
term, refers to as the developmental state. The Nordic model or Nordic capitalism involves combining a
free market economy with a welfare state. Even though there are strong differences between Nordic
countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden), they all have common features supporting a
universalist welfare state which aims at enhancing individual autonomy, promoting social mobility, ensuring
the universal provision of human rights and stabilizing the economy together with the commitment to free
trade.
Pragmatism better explains why Nordic countries can often seem to be amalgams of left- and right-wing
policies and how the new consensus has quickly replaced the old one and their combination of big
government and individualism may seem odd to some. These countries offer a very good lesson to those
who have blind faith in the market and who argue the virtues of a small state and the work of the invisible
hand. They also give food for thought to those who are statist and arguing for ineffective big governments.
It is the efficiency, capacity and functional ability of the state that matters more than its size. In the case of

Brazil, it is the transition to democracy from military authoritarianism and the successful economic reforms
in the 1990s carried out during the reigns of Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Lula da Silva that
consolidated the political system. This is a very different scenario.
When we come to Botswana, its democracy is being challenged for having a dominant party system. That
is why I intentionally skipped mentioning it and the country has not yet been adequately tested with regard
to its history of democratic power transition. However it is still one of the freest countries in Africa regardless
of the deeply rooted economic inequalities across its population.
Another point of departure with Merkeb is his view on the developmental state that he presents as static.
Adrian Leftwich, the renowned scholar on developmental politics, in his book, The Primacy of Politics
explains that developmental states are not static entities. Often their very industrial success produces new
interests and organizations, which then could challenge the power, authority, and autonomy of the state,
and hence produce further challenges.
Peter Evans, another intellectual, also in his book, Embedded Autonomy affirms in the case of South
Korea that successful transformation, not failure, is what produces gravediggers. Viewed this way, the
South Korean states role in producing militant workers brings to mind Marxs vision of the bourgeoisie as
calling forth its own gravedigger in the form of the proletariat. It, therefore, had no choice other than to
create its own enemies whose interests and agendas conflicted with its own. Evans provides the same line
of thought in the case of the developmental state.
Christopher Dent, a political economist, in his book, Taiwans Foreign Economic Policy: The Liberalization
Plus Approach of an Evolving Developmental State argues two main forces undermined the hegemony of
the developmental state: democratisation and globalisation. As democratization deepened in East Asia, so
has the emergence of a more pluralistic society and polycentric distribution of power that has challenged
the authoritarian basis of the developmental state.
He further explained this through the gravedigger hypothesis that the states nurturing of the business
sector created and empowered it to seek greater political power and liberal agenda. The late 1980s onwards
saw the onset of democratisation together with political influence on policy formation.
Acemoglu and Robinson also contend that economic growth requires innovation, something that cannot be
decoupled from creative destruction, which replaces the old with the new in the economic realm and also
destabilizes established power relations in politics. I fully understand that there are no easy recipes for
achieving inclusive institutions via institutional drift to transition towards economically strong state. As the
two scholars rightly explain, Ethiopia has the advantage of having been a centralized state for a long time,
facilitating national economic strategy.
But because of the incumbents control over economic institutions, the extent of creative destruction is
heavily curtailed and this will remain so until there is radical reform in political institutions. Francis
Fukuyama, one of the leading political scientists of our time, in his Stateness First asserts that state
building should be given primacy to order political economic changes. He elucidates that stateness is
required before having democracy or economic growth.
Thus, what the success of East Asias Four Tigers economies and their emulators has shown us is what
can be accomplished with this new thinking. Their experience serves to question long-held notions that
market-based economies require functioning and capable states in order to operate and grow.
It is an established fact that both too weak and too strong states can stifle investment, and that the success
of developed countries rests on the development of a combination of politically soft and economically strong
environments. This is reminiscent of Michael Manns, a British-born sociologist, The Sources of Social

Power differentiation between despotic and infrastructural powers. Despotic powers refer the ability to use
force whereas infrastructural power refers the capacity of the state to actually penetrate civil society and
to implement logistically political decisions throughout the realm. There is no prescription in economics as
to what type of policy to follow and above all the quintessential strength of developmental states as late
industrializers is their readiness to learn from others and from their own experience coupled with the
commitment to catch up with the industrialized neighbours and the West.
Merkebaccused me of misquoting ThadikaMkandwire. I hope the debate is much more than quotation and
misquotation.
As he said, Mkandwire sees the possibility of replicating the East Asian model in Africa. However, he is
learned enough to highlight the various deficiencies of African states that limit their abilities to follow this
path exactly.
For Mkandwire, developmental states are ideological and structural. He also contends that, in terms of their
policies, the first generation of African leaders in the 1960s and 1970s were developmental but
authoritarian. And I was referring this argument.
The most ambiguous thesis of Merkeb is his theory of power. He quoted the influential neo-Marxist
philosopher, Antonio Gramsci, to show his Marxist notion of class struggle. His third face of power or
invisible power has its roots partly in Marxist thinking of pervasive power of ideology.
The political and practical implications of Gramscis ideas were far-reaching because he warned of the
limited possibilities for direct revolutionary struggle for control of the means of production; this war of attack
could only succeed with a prior war of position in the form of a struggle over ideas and beliefs, to create a
new hegemony. This idea of a counter-hegemonic struggle advancing alternatives to dominant ideas of
what is normal and legitimate is what Merkeb calls for to succeed apriori war of position and reveals his
hidden Marxist view.
Gramsci accepts that elite theory is anti-democratic. It stands in opposition to pluralism in suggesting
democracy is a utopian ideal and it is also against the theory of state autonomy. Of course, it was Niccolo
Machiavelli who greatly influenced his theory of state.
Alas, the internal contradiction comes again here. However, to scholars of democracy there is no hegemony
without democracy and hegemony is a rational intellectual and moral leadership and it is inconceivable
without pluralism and deliberation. Contrary to Marxist hegemony,it does discourage the suppression of
politics. This is why Gramscis view is contrary to democratic principles and values.
Merkeb tries to adopt this Marxian class analysis to the Ethiopian context viewing the intellectual, the urban
mass, civil societies and the Diaspora as counter-hegemonic to the developmental state. The problem in
this argument is that it presents the forces as appearing against the very essence of the state rather than
trying to understand why the incumbents Marxist class analysis is responsible for this sort of continual
marginalization of the actors from the political and economic arena.
To support his thesis, Merkeb used evidence of the late Prime Ministers tenure. I understand that Meles
Zenawi was a leader with a magical shrewdness, calibre and astuteness to his party and administration
and it is these qualities that no doubt caught the eye of Merkeb here.
But to think of him balancing consent and coercion is to make a simplistic and wrong political analysis. I
respect that his opinion is his own but it is questionable as to what kind of social contract he is trying to
foresee in democratizing the revolutionary democracy and the consent-coercion equilibrium of the late
prime minister.

The political scientist Merrera Gudina (PhD) argues that the EPRDF is trying to implement the Marxist
ideology of controlling forces of production,given that the peasant remains the dominant demographic in
Ethiopias population,a crucial segment to linger on power for long period of time. The developmental state
of Chalmers Johnson dictates a state where the politicians reign and the state bureaucrats rule. But here,
the state reigns and rules. The late Prime Minister Meles Zenawi also once reiterated that the peasant is
the bedrock of a stable developmental coalition for the incumbent.
The elusive quest for economic development should be a shared vision and what has to be hegemonized
is the principle that economic development should improve the lives of the majority while also guaranteeing
everyones fundamental rights. To this end, Merkeb has said nothing on how institutions are crucial and the
synergetic effects on the development endeavour.
I would rather look to Michel Foucault, the influential French philosopher, whose theory of power is radical
in its socialized focus. For him power is everywhere,a regime of truth that pervades society, and which is
in constant flux and negotiation.
Power is not only negative, repressive or coercive but can also be a necessary, productive and positive
force in society and I believe the state should act in such fashion.
But Merkeb did not say one word about the role of opposition parties, the quest for inclusive growth, and
democratisation in Ethiopia right at this moment. So far he has not come up with a plausible argument about
how a democratic developmental state can be constructed in a revolutionary democratic context of Ethiopia
right at this time. And one must be ready to abandon the tired orthodoxies of the left and right and forage
for good ideas across the political spectrum.
The question is how can the revolutionary democrats with their monist view of society, who do not give
space to pluralism of ideas and values,build a democratic developmental state in Ethiopia?
The two are irreconcilable theoretically, and this before learning from the lessons of the last two decades.
This tell us that the role of politics in the complex development process is fundamental and decisive,
inferring that it is not how much state intervention should take place, but rather what shape it should take.
Obviously, as the reputed scholar on Ethiopian politics, Christopher Clapham, contends the very different
historical, cultural contexts and social structure that various development experiences have evolved from
make direct comparisons and borrowing of models problematic. As Evans argues the art of leapfrogging is
not yet dead and I have no Afro-pessimism with this conception, however, denying the rarity of the birds of
the democratic developmental states is simplistic. Strengthening state capacity to devise and implement
policy- cannot had to order, and that the historical circumstances which were associated with the
emergence of these more or less effective states are not easily replicated.
Even Meles whom Merkeb and other proponents of developmental state took as the architect of the system
also reiterated that when [the developmental state] has done its job it will undermine its own social base,
to be replaced by a social democratic or liberal democratic coalition.Trying to develop democratic
developmentalism where the institutions of rule, governance and the state are insecure is democratising
backwards, seems the rule.
Development is inescapably political and it is the politics that is unintelligent here. The philosopher Edmond
Burke succinctly states a system entirely with no adoptability or means of reform has no means of
preservation of the very its own existence and essence.

BY ZERIHUN ADDISU
HE A GRADUATE IN POLITICAL SCIENCE WHO IS NOW WORKING AS A FOREIGN TRADE
RELATION AND NEGOTIATION EXPERT. HE CAN BE CONTACTED AT
[email protected].

Revolutionary Democracy
Ethiopia will have to be ruled through Revolutionary Democracy. Otherwise because of
the extraordinary circumstance relating to nationalities, it will face disintegration in no
time.
Meles Zenawi
mantra
A mantra is a sacred verbal formula repeated in prayer, meditation, or incantation, such as
an invocation of a god, a magic spell, or a syllable or portion of scripture containing mystical
potentialities. Mantras are usually associated with Hinduism. However, Ethiopia's
revolutionary mantras and their associated spiritual beliefs are now in their third decade as
the central element of Ethiopian governance - their effect has not had the spiritual uplift of
any great religion.
.................................
We noted a few curious reactions to the new Harry Potter movie featuring the
villainous Dolores Umbridge. Several American friends and commentators referred to her as a
fascist while our first thought, and that of a few other Ethiopian-Americans, was that she was
a classic communist cadre in the spirit of Meles / Mengistu.
What is the practical difference between those labels? One of the distinctions between a
Fascist and Communist state is supposed to be who owns the means of production - the state
or private interests. Both states are murderous and any private interests in a Fascist state are
totally creatures of the Totalitarian state that defines both anyway so the distinction is of
little importance in real terms.
Another distinction between Communist and Fascist states is supposed to be how they justify
themselves. Communist states are imagined to have an internationalist perspective and
Fascist states a national one. Again, this difference can not withstand scrutiny because what
it really means is that one directs violence based on class hatred while the other does so
based on ethnic / religious hatred.
Indeed Communists never refer to German Fascists as Nazis instead preferring the term
Hitlerites because Nazi is short for National Socialist. Neither shied away from creating states
defined by brutality within and without. Both attempted to take over the world and both
committed genocide for similiar class / ethnic / religious motives.
Fascism of the Left or Communism of the Right are two sides of a Totalitarian coin that when
tossed means bad luck for humanity however it may land. Both make people suffer for the

interests of a few in the end and the ruling party of Ethiopia has recently seen the creation of
a perverse new fusion of the two.
It is a Totalitarian Party with roots in Albanian Communism that governs by tribal / religious /
regional divide and rule while pretending to be a fount of Liberal Democracy and Free
Enterprise. At the same time it actually owns the economy of an entire country through a
corrupt web of state and pseudo- private interest that are themselves owned by the Party
Politburo in question.
It not only extinguishes prosperity and freedom in Ethiopia but reaches out its hands abroad
through its interchangeable diplomatic / party offices to control thoughts and deeds through
an apparatus of lies, threats, intimidation, character assassination, blackmail and bribery.
Friends of Ethiopia, indeed all those interested in the causes of freedom and prosperity,
should recognize self justifying thugs when they see them. Whatever their stripe or claims what they say amounts to no more than old barbarism in not so new bottles. Sort of like a
rapping Mao.
No mantra can make any of that vile business acceptable.
................................
intro to revolutionary democracy
In 2001 several Western Embassies pooled resources to translate a nearly 700 page volume
titled 'Revolutionary Democracy' from Amharic to English. It was supposed to be the key to
understanding Ethiopian governance and the completion of the transormation from decades of
disastrous Marxist theories and practice towards a market capitalistic economy.
According to the report from the July 28, 2001 Indian Ocean Newsletter (registration
required) the book was "not to be taken literally because it is mainly for internal use; it is an
idealogical weapon against the dissidents of the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF)". The
TPLF is the core of the ruling party the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front EPRDF.
Whatever it purpose, that volume was all anyone had to grab onto in an attempt to
understand what was going on in the Gibee. 'Gibee' is the familiar name for the compound in
central Addis Ababa that has been the seat of all executive power for well over a century.
The embassies desperately needed the translation becauses just asking questions or observing
policy as is routine in most other countries simply was not an option. Much of the confusion
was purposeful because secrecy, unforgiving often vicious reactions to criticism, eternal
intrigue, manipulation, suspicion and an utter lack of transparency had become vital elements
of government.
Those characteristics were vital for a guerilla struggle but inappropriate for enterprising
civilian rule. Gibee-ology, then became a cousin of the Kremlinology that generations of
Western analysts assiduously practiced to study the equally inscrutable Soviet government. As
we shall see, figuring out what revolutionary democracy could possible mean is ultimately as
rewarding as the arcane studies done by Kremlinologists who filled thousands of volumes on
detailed studies of which end of Lenin's tomb one commissar or another politburo member

stood on May Day as opposed to the celebration of the October Revolution.

so ... what is revolutionary democracy?
The Ethiopian government's view of revolutionary democracy is translated here by
the German Federal Foreign Office
the official doctrine remains the vague concept of "revolutionary democracy", which is
regarded as an alternative to the "liberal democracy" practised by western industrialized
states, for which the country is supposedly not yet ready.
The comparison offered from the Gibee conveniently sets standards that are both
geographically distant and temporally decades or generations away for fulfilment. It then
further corrupts the concept of democracy with the escape clause of the term revolutionary.
Liberal democracy is a human achievement that has spread far beyond the West and does not
require industrialization to achieve. From India to Botswana to Nicaragua many countries
have democratic systems that are clearly recognizable as such by any rational observer.
Basically, democracy is a simple concept and one easily separated from other, far less
pleasant, forms of government - people do not have to live in Switzerland, New Zealand or
Japan to benefit from it. The appraisal of a political system is very much like telling the
difference between a nude and a dirty picture - folks just plain know it when they see
it. The word democracy may be abused but few are fooled by its imitations.
Translating the manifesto of Ethiopian revolutionary democracy or reading it in its original
Amharic did little to dispel confusion about policy - one Ethiopian critic from banking circles
in Fortune (via Ethioguide) noted a lack of definition of the very concept of the term
revolutionary democracy in the new volume and wondered
whether it could be a new concept or some rendition of Marxist-Leninist thinking. "People
familiar with Marxism-Leninism may guess, but guessing cannot replace the intention of the
authors of the document."
[...]
The document identifies Ethiopia's businesspersons in two categories - the first class
comprising "those who create value" and the second ones who are classified as "rent collectors
- businessmen who through legal or illegal means suck the wealth created by others as well as
the country's natural resource".
Serving up the leftover mantras of Marxist-Leninism makes as little sense today as it did a
century ago when Russians became the first unfortunates with this type of talk forced on
them. Actually, it is not supposed to make sense.
The reader may want to try a few questions from this quiz, Marxist Jeopardy, about the basics
of Marxism. No one was actually meant to understand it at all beyond its value as a holy text.
It is based on no objective reality - just a thin tissue of made up theories and statements that
mantra like repetition somehow solidifies in the unquestioning mind. People often have the
mistaken assumption that there is inherent value in something that is difficult to
understand.
That is usually not the case - nothing is more valuable than basic human common sense
especially in the face of an all encompassing theory with messianic qualities that always
brings suffering in its wake. The reader should also take this quiz, The Holocausts of

Communism Test, and understand the real reality underlying those confusing words.
Marxist-Leninist jargon provides a form of faux intellectualism and a thin veneer of supposed
good intentions that protects the speaker, listener and the policies that follow from ever
coming to terms with reality and humanity. Rather, it is reality and humanity that must be
changed to fit ideology. The ideology is its own self sustaining echo chamber whose ultimate
purpose is power for a few.
In the case of Marxism and its descendant, Ethiopian revolutionary democracy, there is
obfuscation and confusion to serve a political end. Political debate becomes a theological
activity requiring a class of high priests to understand it. Both are divorced from any actual
real world experience beyond their utility in justifying the continuing rule of the priestly
class. Politics and economic activity are thus not only denied the people in practice but
language itself puts democracy even beyond the understanding of mere mortals.
In this Reporter interview a foreign observer of Ethiopia responds to this question:
So you feel at ease with the Marxist side of EPRDF like Revolutionary Democracy.
I'm sure there are some because after all the people who set up the TPLF were students who
thought Marxism is a good idea. Well, you may find a few people left in the world now who
think that Marxism is a good idea. I don't think anybody with much intelligence in the EPRDF
would be much interested in being a Marxist now.
Well, what do you think about Revolutionary Democracy? What about other policies and
strategies?
Well, I'm not quite sure what Revolutionary Democracy is. Nobody has really explained it to
me. It's an interesting term, but it's like a lot of other terms like that. The essentials of
democracy anywhere are open society, rule of law and market economy, flexible economy, so
that when you have disagreements, problems you can settle them without going to extremes.
And democracy means respect for human rights.

come on, seriously ... what is revolutionary democracy?

An Ethiopian academic, also in the Reporter, makes an attempt to address that question
Yeah. Revolutionary democracy is a sort of borrowed ideology from Mao Tse Tung's New
Democracy. This latter, as most of us, including the leaders of the TPLF, used to understand,
was a political project for building socialism, especially to build a bridge for a socialist
revolution - the so-called transition from pre-capitalist society to a socialist society. Now, by
a magic I could not understand, the TPLF is using that type of ideology for building what is
called white capitalism. So that's their problem. They are using an ideology created to build
socialism, twisted it and are trying to build with it what is called crude capitalism.
As the reader may guess by now no one knows what revolutionary democracy is but the hints
available are not reassuring that it is not a one way trip into a ditch.
Central to Mao's theory of the state was what he called "New Democracy." The New
Democracy involved a graduated series of congresses from the local to the national level, but
its cornerstone was centralization. Mao himself referred to "New Democracy" as "democratic
centralism." Democratic centralism is an essence a dictatorship"a dictatorship of all
revolutionary classes," in Mao's wordspower would be concentrated in the hands of a few in

order to guarantee that all class interests are represented. In other words, the centralization
of authority was meant to guarantee that all levels of society are represented rather than the
interests of the majority, which is the case in a "bourgeois" democracy.
Economically, New Democracy involved the nationalization of banks and industry as well as
the redistribution of land from wealthy landowners to the poor peasants. When Mao came to
power over mainland China in 1949, he renamed New Democracy to the People's Democratic
Dictatorship. The principle behind the People's Democratic Dictatorship was to guarantee that
reactionary or counter-revolutionary voices would not have a say in government or have the
ability to sway the opinions of the people. The centralization of authority, as outlined above,
would guarantee that the will of the people would be carried out by the government.
This sounds like the sales job previously attempted on the German government on the
varieties of democracy to excuse the continuing disenfranchisemnt of Ethiopians. Let us
substitute the words 'liberal democracy' for 'bourgeois democracy' and follow this logic along
its natural path.
As Lenin described it, democratic centralism consisted of "freedom of discussion and
criticism, unity of action". The democratic aspect of this methodology describes the freedom
of members of the political party to discuss and debate matters of policy and direction; but
once the decision by the party was made (by majority vote), all members were expected to
follow that decision unquestioningly. This latter aspect represented the centralism.
The reader should suspect that a majority vote within a revolutionary party might have
vanishingly little to do with the people's will and their interests and far more to do with the
interests of the party and its leaders with total power.Here is a description of Lenin's
dictatorship of the proletariat, the ultimate form of revolutionary democracy his form of
democracy
The scientific concept, dictatorship, means neither more nor less than unlimited power
resting directly on force, not limited by anything, not restrained by any laws or any absolute
rules. Nothing else but that.
For a more comprehensive listing of the many undemocratic perversions of the term
democracy here are relevant excerpts from the relevant holy texts. The reader is not alone
for thinking all of it seems just plain silly. What matters most is that an increasingly small
revolutionary vanguard gets to decide and describe what the will of the people is and what
democracy is. It should come as no shock that a few at the top of the revoutionary food chain
stand to benefit the most from their role of interpreters of the holy texts. Marxist-Leninism
was designed to serve that few as the native inhumanity and logic of power enshrined in its
holy texts have been handed down through the generations from dictator to dictator, from
cadre to cadre and from opportunist to opportunist.
As ugly as the revolutionary democratic path of vicious logic and policy has been historically it
does have its absurd moments of tragi-comedy: at the time the revolutionary tome was being
translated one of the government parties had this to say about it
Upholding the principles of revolutionary democracy could be significant in ensuring the
independence of the judiciary, strengthening unity and tackling threats posed to the well
being of the nation, cadres and members of the Harari national league said.
At the conclusion of a five day discussion held under the title, "the question of democracy in
Ethiopia" the participants said on Monday that revolutionary democracy was the only
development strategy that could fit for the objective reality in the country.

In the absence of accumulated capital, advanced technology and skilled manpower it would
be difficult to adopt the principles of liberal democracy, they said.
The principles of revolutionary democracy could effectively address the basic needs of the
Ethiopian people by stumping out the bane of corruption, nepotism and abuse of power, the
members said.
They said revolutionary democracy could also encourage the direct participation of the
people in the nation building process.
Upholding the principles of equality based on diversity and establishing harmonious
relationships among the peoples of Ethiopia were the corner stones to speed up economic
development, the members indicated.
They also vowed to fight narrow nationalism, chauvinism and corruption, which they
described as the major threat to the whole of the country.
All that is missing from the above description of revolutionary democracy is its ability to
remove stubborn grass stains from clothes, to end global warming and to master the
space-time continuum. Of course, like the formula for Coca Cola, the secret formula for
revolutionary democratic miracles can not be revealed so one just have to believe and repeat
mantras like those above. Nothing short of paradise on earth is being promised!
Such statements certainly read like a parody of a revolutionary movement or an equally
amusing and absurd post-modern analysis of any subject. This glossary of ideologically-correct
insults for enemies of the people is also in the same comic vein - but given the time or place
using them wrongly could represent a death sentence for the unwary.
no one really knows what revolutionary democracy is right?
Silly as all this may seem it can not be amusing to the 70 million Ethiopians whose lives are
determined by it - right now. It is all meant to be taken quite seriously and can not herald a
transformation to any recognizable form of democracy or market economy. When this ersatz
political program was defined it was ten years after the fall of Mengistu's Marxism, twelve
years after the collapse of the Iron Curtain, ten years after the dissolution of the USSR and
almost a quarter of a century after the abandonment of Maoism in China.
Imagine an impassioned group of Red Guard cadres during the Cultural Revolution posessed by
the spirit of Mao through his Little Red Bookand you will have a clear idea of the dearth of
imagination and the lack of engagement with reality that such 'revolutionary' language
represents. After the utter failure of his Great Leap Forward at the cost of tens of millions of
lives, Mao's power and status were reduced within the Chinese Communist Party. The Cultural
Revolution with all of its nonsensical slogans and millions of victims was Mao's revenge against
the 'reactionaries'. It was used to create a 'permanent revolution' of ongoing orchestrated
tumult directed against all potential and even imaginary enemies.
From one season to the next, any changes or essentially illogical policies and meaningless
slogans and mantras only mattered because anyone valuing their life or position had to keep
up very closely with the party line. In societies where mantras define government it does not
matter what is being said or what anything means. The chants and slogans take on a life of

their own and indeed by simple mind dulling repetition and the jealous exclusion of other
thoughts a government can manage to obliterate all rational thought. The ultimate result of
the divorce of language from reality is familiar to readers of the novel of a bleak totalitarian
future by George Orwell, 1984, where 'Newspeak', the official language has as its sole purpose
the specific needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism, while making all other methods of thought
impossible. When Oldspeak has become obsolete, the last link with the past will have been
destroyed. The vocabulary of Newspeak has been built by inventing new words, eliminating
old words, and stripping existing words of their finer shades of meaning.
In Ethiopia the results of these 21st century mantras will ultimately be as continuingly
harmful in terms of lives and time wasted. All of this serves only the purpose of knowingly
retarding the development of any possible advanced political or economic system and civil
society that could threaten the interests of the ruling class. Make no mistake, this new
revolution is also meant to be permanent.
In response to abundant criticism on the obvious ideological underpinnings of revolutionary
democracy in Ethiopia a government official
described as 'inappropriate and grave mistake' the attempt by some groups to liken
revolutionary democracy with communism" and "defended Ethiopia's policy of public
ownership of land, saying that the system was in the best interest of the Ethiopian peasantry,
who constitutes by far the largest population."
This obligatory and hopeless defense was mounted not mounted just in response to criticism
of revolutionary rhetoric but rather the whole array of laws and policies that are central to
governance since 1974. The Ethiopian Constitution today states just as the Constitution of
Mengistu's dicatorship did that there can be no private ownership of land. The national land
tenure system continues to see peasants in particular, as modern day serfs of the state. The
attendant loss of any economic viability and of basic human rights that such a system
guarantees is obvious to everyone concerned, especially those who will gain the most from it.

revolutionary democracy across time and space

Versions of revolutionary democracy have appeared worldwide - it is not a novel concept.
Unfortunately, all of the countries past and present where the term has gained currency in
any of its forms have been the unwilling hosts of a rather unpleasant set of ideologies and
governments that were necessarily accompanied by the lack of human and democratic rights
and of course by stunningly poor economic performance. Below we will take a short tour of
such times and places.
Recently the term was also mutated to the advantage of the Nicaraguan Marxist dictatorship
and joined the litany of formulaic Marxist mantras that heralded the usual disastrous results
of absent human rights and economic failure. Remember that the second the Sandanistas
were forced to have a real democratic election they were thrown out of power. The blather
will be sadly familiar
The Sandinista cause was supported by three major beliefs, the three legs of the stool of
Nicaraguan revolutionary democracy . The first, political democracy, meant that the
Sandinistas supported a republican form of government, based on elections with universal
suffrage. The second, participatory democracy, meant active citizen participation in
government organizations, task forces, etc. Finally the third, economic equality, meant a

communistic economy and complete equalization of wealth, incorporating both Marxist and
socialist ideas. These three ideals together form a very interesting combination. Whereas in
Russia Lenin and Stalin had focused primarily on economic equality, and forgotten Marxs
rule by the workers, the Sandinistas held a much better potential of representation of
"Applied Marxism".
During the end of the First World War and in the midst of the Russian Civil War Trotsky pulled
revolutionary democracy out of his bag of tricks to justify whatever could keep the Bolsheviks
in power. Again the usual silly language is used in the service of tyranny
Our own Menshevik, social-revolutionary pacifism, despite the difference in outward
conditions, played in its own way exactly the same part. The resolution on war, which was
adopted by a majority of the All-Russian Congress of Workers' and Soldiers' Councils, is
founded not only on the common pacifist prejudices concerning war, but also on the
characteristics of an imperialistic war. The Congress declared that the "first and most
important task of revolutionary democracy" was the speedy ending of war. But all these
assumptions are only directed towards a single end : so long as the international efforts of
democracy have failed to make an end of war, so long must Russian revolutionary democracy
demand with all its strength that the Red Army shall be prepared to fight whether defensive
or offensive.
Here is some more useless verbiage on that fallen saint of Marxism, Trotsky. and some others
that remain forever holy
Marx, Engels and Lenin (and to a considerable degree Trotsky) were revolutionary democrats
who fully grasped the necessity of the working class taking the lead against every instance of
oppression, every democratic deficit, every act of bureaucratic arbitrariness. In their day
Marx and Engels not only chided their followers in Germany for not taking up the fight for a
democratic republic against the kaiser state, but raised the perspective in the monarchist
British Isles of a federal republic. Lenin approvingly cites this in State and revolution.
According to the Australian left revolutionary democracy is working wonders in Cuban
education. Wonder which country is really more democratic? Wonder how many Australian
refugees want to escape to Cuba? Don't bother to ask such questions that have to do with
actual non-delusional or halucinatory reality, just recognize more of the same
Cuban school students demonstrate an ability to generalise and to place themselves in the
big picture, at the same time confidently understanding the role they have to play as
individuals in a revolutionary democracy. This is directly at odds with the individualistic and
self-centred outlook the Australian education system inculcates into young people.
Last but far from least is the newest adherent of Revolutionary Democracy giving the eldest
one this dubious blessing in this Pravda piece "Cuba and Venezuela to unit[e] Latin American
states to confront the growing imperial aggression of the USA." Yes, that headline really was
written in 2005 so Ethiopia is not the only country stuck in a time warp of dated radicalism
although its people do suffer more. The article quotes Caudillo Chavez on the subject of
democracy:
People have asked me how I can support Fidel if he's a dictator ... But Cuba doesn't have a
dictatorship - it's a revolutionary democracy.
That is certainly welcome news to Cubans who were under the impression that forty six years
of Castro's one man rule (one of the richest men on planet earth) was against their will.
Thus, Ethiopian revolutionary democracy is firmly rooted in a nearly century old living
tradition of dictatorship and engineeered poverty that is dressed up in the increasingly absurd
catechism of Marxist jibberish.

Ethiopian 'Newspeak' is certainly Orwellian in intent and result. According to George Orwell's
dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four,Doublethink means
the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting
both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact
that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back
from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all
the while to take account of the reality which one deniesall this is indispensably necessary.
Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the
word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases
this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.
Accepting the logic of current governance would have all believe that 'love is hate; and
'peace is war' because no revolution will ever be allowed to challenge the current one and
there certainly is no real democracy in store for Ethiopia.
why not abandon revolution once and for all?
The problem with political mantras is that they are only needed to defend failure - success
seldom needs cheerleaders. Capitalism needs no awaj or gimgemas to function (Amharic for
proclamation and self confession / criticism sessions, respectively) - it just exists as a product
of human nature and existing productive, not promised social and economic evolution. While
it may be described in holy texts of its own, those texts came after the fact and are firmly in
touch with reality. Wealth and poverty, dollars and cents, birr and centimes, hunger and
plenty even happiness and despair are universal bits of reality that capitalism and liberal
democracy have always balanced far better than any permutation of the left.
If modern history has shown us anything it is that the revolutionary solutions for the problems
of development or indeed of human life have never worked and do not have prospects of ever
working anywhere. China was crippled by revolution and after World War II did not recover
and regain the level of international trade it had enjoyed in the 1920s until almost seventy
years later - after Deng abandoned Maoism. It did so with sound agricultural and land policies
- not just with prettified words and bold proclamations of intent. For example, how many
foreign companies will ever invest in a country that prattles on about revolutionary
democracy and that doesnt respect the most basic economic rights such as ownership of
private property?
What imaginable virtue is there in following a policy whose history guarantees failure and ruin
when capitalism has worked so well? In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx said that
The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and
more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together.
Why shouldn't Ethiopia finally have a chance at the same good old fashioned Capitalist
exploitation that made its Western aid donors so rich to begin with. This sacrifice would be
worth it if only so the mass of wealth thus produced would eventually benefit revolutionary
democracy when it showed up to nationalize it all and renew its zealous commitment to
poverty and suffering. After all, Ethiopia should not skip the capitalist stage of history
between feudalism and even hybrid socialism. Marx, the savior would certainly disapprove of
using revolutionary democracy to travel back in time.

It seems that the greatest virtue and value of any opposition to this government and its
revolutionary policies is precisely that it does not have a mantra, ideology or a set of
delusions that has long been proven wrong by a history of millions of human lives ruined and
decades lost not only in the world but right here in Ethiopia. For now simply not being a
revolutionary democratic government that stubbornly redirects the country toward every
ditch and pothole that the rest of humanity adroitly avoids should be enough to get the
opposition elected in any fair system.
Unfortunately, the chances that the current government will let itself be voted out of power,
regardless of the popular will, is less than zero. The actual mechanism of state control and
stage management of elections for the benefit of foreign observers will be the subject of
Politburo Knows Best IV.
In the end all anyone really needs to know about revolutionary democracy and the
current prospects for democracy and human rights in Ethiopia is simply that Politburo
Knows Best ... for everyone ... forever and ever. All the nonsensical mantras and slogans
serve the purpose of control - that is the central lesson of Gibee-ology. Don't be surprised
if the coming year offers several more wonderful and tailored to the moment, facets and
definitions of revolutionary democracy.
Revolutionary Democracy remains the basis of politburo rule after 'election' 2005 and the
series of massacres against protesting students and other citizens. An evaluation had this to
say
Meles is a capitalist on the outside, a Marxist on the inside, which is why they are in a state of
disarray," says one analyst. Former TPLF members concur. When Mr Meles promoted his idea
of revolutionary democracy, "I never understood it myself, even though I was in the party,"
says one.
Since about the time this post was published there has (to our count anyway) been only one
mention of Revolutionary Democracy (in English at least) by the government. These days it
seems as though the government is willing all to forget that Revolutionary Democracy ever
existed or it seems like there is shame associated with the memory.
The party is still the Ethiopian Revolutionary Democratic Front and part of the partys' press
machine is still called Revolutionary Democracy, sure - but to any observer using English it
would seem that the whole business had been shed like a snake sheds its skin.
The politburo and their herd of cadres may have abandoned their raison d'etre verbally but
not in spirit. Picture, dear reader, the twisted logic of the ruling ideology, its roots in
Leninist-Maoist 'Democratic Centralism' and the unforgiving discipline of this vanguard
permanent revolutionary party.
Verbally forsaking Revolutionary Democracy in exigent circumstances thus becomes a
noteworthy victory for Revolutionary Democratic discipline. All the while the actual
practice of Revolutionary Democracy remains intact but it has simply been realized that it is
no longer a public relations plus when cash bearing donor nations might actually try to figure
out what it means.
This is all in the spirit of the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Soviet International Socialism and German
National Socialism were bitter enemies until Stalin and Hitler agreed to divide Poland, the
Baltic states and the Balkans between them. By the next day every Socialist / Communist on

earth became an unyielding opponent of world capitalism against the suddenly blameless
German Reich - depending on geography this was under punishment of death.
The tragic experiences that humanity has had with rulers and their justifications was noted
long ago by Voltaire a long time ago when he said
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
....................
Revolutionary Democracy is the guiding ideology of the Ethiopian ruling party and will always
remain so. Not mentioning ideology to explain an ideological dictatorship is not helpful. This
attempt to make sense of it, (1) Revolutionary Democracy discusses the Marxist - Leninist Maoist roots of the ideology and finds it to be essentially a grab bag of silly but deadly
mantras justifying the dictatorship of a few.
With very kind permission we have also serialized over a number of posts, Chapter 7 of Dr.
Theodore Vestal's remarkable book Ethiopia: A Post-Cold War African State. That chapter
dealt with the the ruling party's 'Revolutionary Democratic Goals' based on internal documents
of the party that were published as "TPLF/EPRDF's Strategies for Establishing its Hegemony &
Perpetuating its Rule," in Ethiopian Register Magazine.
The first part of Chapter 7 was (2) Revolutionary Democracy Redux and it looked at the
overall strategy of the ruling EPRDF, its own view of Revolutionary Democracy and the overall
political goals that the program was to achieve. The second part of Chapter 7 was
(3)Revolutionary Democracy Recycled , and examined the economic aspects of the party
program.
The third part of Chapter 7 was (4) Revolutionary Democracy Returns, notes the political
strategies of the party for ensuring permanent hegemony and the rules various actors in
society will play or be forced to play in forcing eternal rule.
The final entry (5) Revolutionary Democracy Reloaded is the end of Chapter 7 and concludes
with the strategies for hegemony of this revealing and stunningly frank blueprint of a
revolutionary vanguard party to reach its aim of permanent dictatorship while convincing the
whole world otherwise.
Actually at this point compared to when this post was originally written in 2004, the regime
has stopped pretending to be democratic - opting instead to an 'in your face' brutality towards
Ethiopians and foreign donors.
# posted by ethiopundit : 8/10/2007

mantra
A mantra is a sacred verbal formula repeated in prayer, meditation, or incantation, such as
an invocation of a god, a magic spell, or a syllable or portion of scripture containing mystical
potentialities. Mantras are usually associated with Hinduism. However, Ethiopia's
revolutionary mantras and their associated spiritual beliefs are now in their third decade as

the central element of Ethiopian governance - their effect has not had the spiritual uplift of
any great religion.
intro to revolutionary democracy
In 2001 several Western Embassies pooled resources to translate a nearly 700 page volume
titled 'Revolutionary Democracy' from Amharic to English. It was supposed to be the key to
understanding Ethiopian governance and the completion of the transormation from decades of
disastrous Marxist theories and practice towards a market capitalistic economy.
According to the report from the July 28, 2001 Indian Ocean Newsletter (registration
required) the book was "not to be taken literally because it is mainly for internal use; it is an
idealogical weapon against the dissidents of the Tigray People's Liberation Front (TPLF)". The
TPLF is the core of the ruling party the Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front EPRDF.
Whatever it purpose, that volume was all anyone had to grab onto in an attempt to
understand what was going on in the Gibee. 'Gibee' is the familiar name for the compound in
central Addis Ababa that has been the seat of all executive power for well over a century.
The embassies desperately needed the translation becauses just asking questions or observing
policy as is routine in most other countries simply was not an option. Much of the confusion
was purposeful because secrecy, unforgiving often vicious reactions to criticism, eternal
intrigue, manipulation, suspicion and an utter lack of transparency had become vital elements
of government.
Those characteristics were vital for a guerilla struggle but inappropriate for enterprising
civilian rule. Gibee-ology, then became a cousin of the Kremlinology that generations of
Western analysts assiduously practiced to study the equally inscrutable Soviet government. As
we shall see, figuring out what revolutionary democracy could possible mean is ultimately as
rewarding as the arcane studies done by Kremlinologists who filled thousands of volumes on
detailed studies of which end of Lenin's tomb one commissar or another politburo member
stood on May Day as opposed to the celebration of the October Revolution.
so ... what is revolutionary democracy?
The Ethiopian government's view of revolutionary democracy is translated here by
the German Federal Foreign Office
the official doctrine remains the vague concept of "revolutionary democracy", which is
regarded as an alternative to the "liberal democracy" practised by western industrialized
states, for which the country is supposedly not yet ready.
The comparison offered from the Gibee conveniently sets standards that are both
geographically distant and temporally decades or generations away for fulfilment. It then
further corrupts the concept of democracy with the escape clause of the term revolutionary.
Liberal democracy is a human achievement that has spread far beyond the West and does not
require industrialization to achieve. From India to Botswana to Nicaragua many countries
have democratic systems that are clearly recognizable as such by any rational observer.
Basically, democracy is a simple concept and one easily separated from other, far less

pleasant, forms of government - people do not have to live in Switzerland, New Zealand or
Japan to benefit from it. The appraisal of a political system is very much like telling the
difference between a nude and a dirty picture - folks just plain know it when they see
it. The word democracy may be abused but few are fooled by its imitations.
Translating the manifesto of Ethiopian revolutionary democracy or reading it in its original
Amharic did little to dispel confusion about policy - one Ethiopian critic from banking circles
in Fortune (via Ethioguide) noted a lack of definition of the very concept of the term
revolutionary democracy in the new volume and wondered
whether it could be a new concept or some rendition of Marxist-Leninist thinking. "People
familiar with Marxism-Leninism may guess, but guessing cannot replace the intention of the
authors of the document."
[...]
The document identifies Ethiopia's businesspersons in two categories - the first class
comprising "those who create value" and the second ones who are classified as "rent collectors
- businessmen who through legal or illegal means suck the wealth created by others as well as
the country's natural resource".
Serving up the leftover mantras of Marxist-Leninism makes as little sense today as it did a
century ago when Russians became the first unfortunates with this type of talk forced on
them. Actually, it is not supposed to make sense.
The reader may want to try a few questions from this quiz, Marxist Jeopardy, about the basics
of Marxism. No one was actually meant to understand it at all beyond its value as a holy text.
It is based on no objective reality - just a thin tissue of made up theories and statements that
mantra like repetition somehow solidifies in the unquestioning mind. People often have the
mistaken assumption that there is inherent value in something that is difficult to
understand.
That is usually not the case - nothing is more valuable than basic human common sense
especially in the face of an all encompassing theory with messianic qualities that always
brings suffering in its wake. The reader should also take this quiz, The Holocausts of
Communism Test, and understand the real reality underlying those confusing words.
Marxist-Leninist jargon provides a form of faux intellectualism and a thin veneer of supposed
good intentions that protects the speaker, listener and the policies that follow from ever
coming to terms with reality and humanity. Rather, it is reality and humanity that must be
changed to fit ideology. The ideology is its own self sustaining echo chamber whose ultimate
purpose is power for a few.
In the case of Marxism and its descendant, Ethiopian revolutionary democracy, there is
obfuscation and confusion to serve a political end. Political debate becomes a theological
activity requiring a class of high priests to understand it. Both are divorced from any actual
real world experience beyond their utility in justifying the continuing rule of the priestly
class. Politics and economic activity are thus not only denied the people in practice but
language itself puts democracy even beyond the understanding of mere mortals.
In this Reporter interview a foreign observer of Ethiopia responds to this question:
So you feel at ease with the Marxist side of EPRDF like Revolutionary Democracy.

I'm sure there are some because after all the people who set up the TPLF were students who
thought Marxism is a good idea. Well, you may find a few people left in the world now who
think that Marxism is a good idea. I don't think anybody with much intelligence in the EPRDF
would be much interested in being a Marxist now.
Well, what do you think about Revolutionary Democracy? What about other policies and
strategies?
Well, I'm not quite sure what Revolutionary Democracy is. Nobody has really explained it to
me. It's an interesting term, but it's like a lot of other terms like that. The essentials of
democracy anywhere are open society, rule of law and market economy, flexible economy, so
that when you have disagreements, problems you can settle them without going to extremes.
And democracy means respect for human rights.

come on, seriously ... what is revolutionary democracy?

An Ethiopian academic, also in the Reporter, makes an attempt to address that question
Yeah. Revolutionary democracy is a sort of borrowed ideology from Mao Tse Tung's New
Democracy. This latter, as most of us, including the leaders of the TPLF, used to understand,
was a political project for building socialism, especially to build a bridge for a socialist
revolution - the so-called transition from pre-capitalist society to a socialist society. Now, by
a magic I could not understand, the TPLF is using that type of ideology for building what is
called white capitalism. So that's their problem. They are using an ideology created to build
socialism, twisted it and are trying to build with it what is called crude capitalism.
As the reader may guess by now no one knows what revolutionary democracy is but the hints
available are not reassuring that it is not a one way trip into a ditch.
Central to Mao's theory of the state was what he called "New Democracy." The New
Democracy involved a graduated series of congresses from the local to the national level, but
its cornerstone was centralization. Mao himself referred to "New Democracy" as "democratic
centralism." Democratic centralism is an essence a dictatorship"a dictatorship of all
revolutionary classes," in Mao's wordspower would be concentrated in the hands of a few in
order to guarantee that all class interests are represented. In other words, the centralization
of authority was meant to guarantee that all levels of society are represented rather than the
interests of the majority, which is the case in a "bourgeois" democracy.
Economically, New Democracy involved the nationalization of banks and industry as well as
the redistribution of land from wealthy landowners to the poor peasants. When Mao came to
power over mainland China in 1949, he renamed New Democracy to the People's Democratic
Dictatorship. The principle behind the People's Democratic Dictatorship was to guarantee that
reactionary or counter-revolutionary voices would not have a say in government or have the
ability to sway the opinions of the people. The centralization of authority, as outlined above,
would guarantee that the will of the people would be carried out by the government.
This sounds like the sales job previously attempted on the German government on the
varieties of democracy to excuse the continuing disenfranchisemnt of Ethiopians. Let us
substitute the words 'liberal democracy' for 'bourgeois democracy' and follow this logic along
its natural path.
As Lenin described it, democratic centralism consisted of "freedom of discussion and
criticism, unity of action". The democratic aspect of this methodology describes the freedom
of members of the political party to discuss and debate matters of policy and direction; but

once the decision by the party was made (by majority vote), all members were expected to
follow that decision unquestioningly. This latter aspect represented the centralism.
The reader should suspect that a majority vote within a revolutionary party might have
vanishingly little to do with the people's will and their interests and far more to do with the
interests of the party and its leaders with total power.Here is a description of Lenin's
dictatorship of the proletariat, the ultimate form of revolutionary democracy his form of
democracy
The scientific concept, dictatorship, means neither more nor less than unlimited power
resting directly on force, not limited by anything, not restrained by any laws or any absolute
rules. Nothing else but that.
For a more comprehensive listing of the many undemocratic perversions of the term
democracy here are relevant excerpts from the relevant holy texts. The reader is not alone
for thinking all of it seems just plain silly. What matters most is that an increasingly small
revolutionary vanguard gets to decide and describe what the will of the people is and what
democracy is. It should come as no shock that a few at the top of the revoutionary food chain
stand to benefit the most from their role of interpreters of the holy texts. Marxist-Leninism
was designed to serve that few as the native inhumanity and logic of power enshrined in its
holy texts have been handed down through the generations from dictator to dictator, from
cadre to cadre and from opportunist to opportunist.
As ugly as the revolutionary democratic path of vicious logic and policy has been historically it
does have its absurd moments of tragi-comedy: at the time the revolutionary tome was being
translated one of the government parties had this to say about it
Upholding the principles of revolutionary democracy could be significant in ensuring the
independence of the judiciary, strengthening unity and tackling threats posed to the well
being of the nation, cadres and members of the Harari national league said.
At the conclusion of a five day discussion held under the title, "the question of democracy in
Ethiopia" the participants said on Monday that revolutionary democracy was the only
development strategy that could fit for the objective reality in the country.
In the absence of accumulated capital, advanced technology and skilled manpower it would
be difficult to adopt the principles of liberal democracy, they said.
The principles of revolutionary democracy could effectively address the basic needs of the
Ethiopian people by stumping out the bane of corruption, nepotism and abuse of power, the
members said.
They said revolutionary democracy could also encourage the direct participation of the
people in the nation building process.
Upholding the principles of equality based on diversity and establishing harmonious
relationships among the peoples of Ethiopia were the corner stones to speed up economic
development, the members indicated.
They also vowed to fight narrow nationalism, chauvinism and corruption, which they
described as the major threat to the whole of the country.
All that is missing from the above description of revolutionary democracy is its ability to
remove stubborn grass stains from clothes, to end global warming and to master the

space-time continuum. Of course, like the formula for Coca Cola, the secret formula for
revolutionary democratic miracles can not be revealed so one just have to believe and repeat
mantras like those above. Nothing short of paradise on earth is being promised!
Such statements certainly read like a parody of a revolutionary movement or an equally
amusing and absurd post-modern analysis of any subject. This glossary of ideologically-correct
insults for enemies of the people is also in the same comic vein - but given the time or place
using them wrongly could represent a death sentence for the unwary.
no one really knows what revolutionary democracy is right?
Silly as all this may seem it can not be amusing to the 70 million Ethiopians whose lives are
determined by it - right now. It is all meant to be taken quite seriously and can not herald a
transformation to any recognizable form of democracy or market economy. When this ersatz
political program was defined it was ten years after the fall of Mengistu's Marxism, twelve
years after the collapse of the Iron Curtain, ten years after the dissolution of the USSR and
almost a quarter of a century after the abandonment of Maoism in China.
Imagine an impassioned group of Red Guard cadres during the Cultural Revolution posessed by
the spirit of Mao through his Little Red Bookand you will have a clear idea of the dearth of
imagination and the lack of engagement with reality that such 'revolutionary' language
represents. After the utter failure of his Great Leap Forward at the cost of tens of millions of
lives, Mao's power and status were reduced within the Chinese Communist Party. The Cultural
Revolution with all of its nonsensical slogans and millions of victims was Mao's revenge against
the 'reactionaries'. It was used to create a 'permanent revolution' of ongoing orchestrated
tumult directed against all potential and even imaginary enemies.
From one season to the next, any changes or essentially illogical policies and meaningless
slogans and mantras only mattered because anyone valuing their life or position had to keep
up very closely with the party line. In societies where mantras define government it does not
matter what is being said or what anything means. The chants and slogans take on a life of
their own and indeed by simple mind dulling repetition and the jealous exclusion of other
thoughts a government can manage to obliterate all rational thought. The ultimate result of
the divorce of language from reality is familiar to readers of the novel of a bleak totalitarian
future by George Orwell, 1984, where 'Newspeak', the official language has as its sole purpose
the specific needs of Ingsoc, or English Socialism, while making all other methods of thought
impossible. When Oldspeak has become obsolete, the last link with the past will have been
destroyed. The vocabulary of Newspeak has been built by inventing new words, eliminating
old words, and stripping existing words of their finer shades of meaning.
In Ethiopia the results of these 21st century mantras will ultimately be as continuingly
harmful in terms of lives and time wasted. All of this serves only the purpose of knowingly
retarding the development of any possible advanced political or economic system and civil
society that could threaten the interests of the ruling class. Make no mistake, this new
revolution is also meant to be permanent.
In response to abundant criticism on the obvious ideological underpinnings of revolutionary
democracy in Ethiopia a government official
described as 'inappropriate and grave mistake' the attempt by some groups to liken
revolutionary democracy with communism" and "defended Ethiopia's policy of public

ownership of land, saying that the system was in the best interest of the Ethiopian peasantry,
who constitutes by far the largest population."
This obligatory and hopeless defense was mounted not mounted just in response to criticism
of revolutionary rhetoric but rather the whole array of laws and policies that are central to
governance since 1974. The Ethiopian Constitution today states just as the Constitution of
Mengistu's dicatorship did that there can be no private ownership of land. The national land
tenure system continues to see peasants in particular, as modern day serfs of the state. The
attendant loss of any economic viability and of basic human rights that such a system
guarantees is obvious to everyone concerned, especially those who will gain the most from it.

revolutionary democracy across time and space

Versions of revolutionary democracy have appeared worldwide - it is not a novel concept.
Unfortunately, all of the countries past and present where the term has gained currency in
any of its forms have been the unwilling hosts of a rather unpleasant set of ideologies and
governments that were necessarily accompanied by the lack of human and democratic rights
and of course by stunningly poor economic performance. Below we will take a short tour of
such times and places.
Recently the term was also mutated to the advantage of the Nicaraguan Marxist dictatorship
and joined the litany of formulaic Marxist mantras that heralded the usual disastrous results
of absent human rights and economic failure. Remember that the second the Sandanistas
were forced to have a real democratic election they were thrown out of power. The blather
will be sadly familiar
The Sandinista cause was supported by three major beliefs, the three legs of the stool of
Nicaraguan revolutionary democracy . The first, political democracy, meant that the
Sandinistas supported a republican form of government, based on elections with universal
suffrage. The second, participatory democracy, meant active citizen participation in
government organizations, task forces, etc. Finally the third, economic equality, meant a
communistic economy and complete equalization of wealth, incorporating both Marxist and
socialist ideas. These three ideals together form a very interesting combination. Whereas in
Russia Lenin and Stalin had focused primarily on economic equality, and forgotten Marxs
rule by the workers, the Sandinistas held a much better potential of representation of
"Applied Marxism".
During the end of the First World War and in the midst of the Russian Civil War Trotsky pulled
revolutionary democracy out of his bag of tricks to justify whatever could keep the Bolsheviks
in power. Again the usual silly language is used in the service of tyranny
Our own Menshevik, social-revolutionary pacifism, despite the difference in outward
conditions, played in its own way exactly the same part. The resolution on war, which was
adopted by a majority of the All-Russian Congress of Workers' and Soldiers' Councils, is
founded not only on the common pacifist prejudices concerning war, but also on the
characteristics of an imperialistic war. The Congress declared that the "first and most
important task of revolutionary democracy" was the speedy ending of war. But all these
assumptions are only directed towards a single end : so long as the international efforts of
democracy have failed to make an end of war, so long must Russian revolutionary democracy
demand with all its strength that the Red Army shall be prepared to fight whether defensive
or offensive.

Here is some more useless verbiage on that fallen saint of Marxism, Trotsky. and some others
that remain forever holy
Marx, Engels and Lenin (and to a considerable degree Trotsky) were revolutionary democrats
who fully grasped the necessity of the working class taking the lead against every instance of
oppression, every democratic deficit, every act of bureaucratic arbitrariness. In their day
Marx and Engels not only chided their followers in Germany for not taking up the fight for a
democratic republic against the kaiser state, but raised the perspective in the monarchist
British Isles of a federal republic. Lenin approvingly cites this in State and revolution.
According to the Australian left revolutionary democracy is working wonders in Cuban
education. Wonder which country is really more democratic? Wonder how many Australian
refugees want to escape to Cuba? Don't bother to ask such questions that have to do with
actual non-delusional or halucinatory reality, just recognize more of the same
Cuban school students demonstrate an ability to generalise and to place themselves in the
big picture, at the same time confidently understanding the role they have to play as
individuals in a revolutionary democracy. This is directly at odds with the individualistic and
self-centred outlook the Australian education system inculcates into young people.
Last but far from least is the newest adherent of Revolutionary Democracy giving the eldest
one this dubious blessing in this Pravda piece "Cuba and Venezuela to unit[e] Latin American
states to confront the growing imperial aggression of the USA." Yes, that headline really was
written in 2005 so Ethiopia is not the only country stuck in a time warp of dated radicalism
although its people do suffer more. The article quotes Caudillo Chavez on the subject of
democracy:
People have asked me how I can support Fidel if he's a dictator ... But Cuba doesn't have a
dictatorship - it's a revolutionary democracy.
That is certainly welcome news to Cubans who were under the impression that forty six years
of Castro's one man rule (one of the richest men on planet earth) was against their will.
Thus, Ethiopian revolutionary democracy is firmly rooted in a nearly century old living
tradition of dictatorship and engineeered poverty that is dressed up in the increasingly absurd
catechism of Marxist jibberish.
Ethiopian 'Newspeak' is certainly Orwellian in intent and result. According to George Orwell's
dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four,Doublethink means
the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting
both of them. ... To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact
that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back
from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all
the while to take account of the reality which one deniesall this is indispensably necessary.
Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the
word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases
this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.
Accepting the logic of current governance would have all believe that 'love is hate; and
'peace is war' because no revolution will ever be allowed to challenge the current one and
there certainly is no real democracy in store for Ethiopia.
why not abandon revolution once and for all?
The problem with political mantras is that they are only needed to defend failure - success

seldom needs cheerleaders. Capitalism needs no awaj or gimgemas to function (Amharic for
proclamation and self confession / criticism sessions, respectively) - it just exists as a product
of human nature and existing productive, not promised social and economic evolution. While
it may be described in holy texts of its own, those texts came after the fact and are firmly in
touch with reality. Wealth and poverty, dollars and cents, birr and centimes, hunger and
plenty even happiness and despair are universal bits of reality that capitalism and liberal
democracy have always balanced far better than any permutation of the left.
If modern history has shown us anything it is that the revolutionary solutions for the problems
of development or indeed of human life have never worked and do not have prospects of ever
working anywhere. China was crippled by revolution and after World War II did not recover
and regain the level of international trade it had enjoyed in the 1920s until almost seventy
years later - after Deng abandoned Maoism. It did so with sound agricultural and land policies
- not just with prettified words and bold proclamations of intent. For example, how many
foreign companies will ever invest in a country that prattles on about revolutionary
democracy and that doesnt respect the most basic economic rights such as ownership of
private property?
What imaginable virtue is there in following a policy whose history guarantees failure and ruin
when capitalism has worked so well? In the Manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx said that
The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and
more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together.
Why shouldn't Ethiopia finally have a chance at the same good old fashioned Capitalist
exploitation that made its Western aid donors so rich to begin with. This sacrifice would be
worth it if only so the mass of wealth thus produced would eventually benefit revolutionary
democracy when it showed up to nationalize it all and renew its zealous commitment to
poverty and suffering. After all, Ethiopia should not skip the capitalist stage of history
between feudalism and even hybrid socialism. Marx, the savior would certainly disapprove of
using revolutionary democracy to travel back in time.
It seems that the greatest virtue and value of any opposition to this government and its
revolutionary policies is precisely that it does not have a mantra, ideology or a set of
delusions that has long been proven wrong by a history of millions of human lives ruined and
decades lost not only in the world but right here in Ethiopia. For now simply not being a
revolutionary democratic government that stubbornly redirects the country toward every
ditch and pothole that the rest of humanity adroitly avoids should be enough to get the
opposition elected in any fair system.
Unfortunately, the chances that the current government will let itself be voted out of power,
regardless of the popular will, is less than zero. The actual mechanism of state control and
stage management of elections for the benefit of foreign observers will be the subject of
Politburo Knows Best IV.
In the end all anyone really needs to know about revolutionary democracy and the
current prospects for democracy and human rights in Ethiopia is simply that Politburo
Knows Best ... for everyone ... forever and ever. All the nonsensical mantras and slogans
serve the purpose of control - that is the central lesson of Gibee-ology. Don't be surprised
if the coming year offers several more wonderful and tailored to the moment, facets and
definitions of revolutionary democracy.

Revolutionary Democracy remains the basis of politburo rule after 'election' 2005 and the
series of massacres against protesting students and other citizens. An evaluation had this to
say
Meles is a capitalist on the outside, a Marxist on the inside, which is why they are in a state of
disarray," says one analyst. Former TPLF members concur. When Mr Meles promoted his idea
of revolutionary democracy, "I never understood it myself, even though I was in the party,"
says one.
Since about the time this post was published there has (to our count anyway) been only one
mention of Revolutionary Democracy (in English at least) by the government. These days it
seems as though the government is willing all to forget that Revolutionary Democracy ever
existed or it seems like there is shame associated with the memory.
The party is still the Ethiopian Revolutionary Democratic Front and part of the partys' press
machine is still called Revolutionary Democracy, sure - but to any observer using English it
would seem that the whole business had been shed like a snake sheds its skin.
The politburo and their herd of cadres may have abandoned their raison d'etre verbally but
not in spirit. Picture, dear reader, the twisted logic of the ruling ideology, its roots in
Leninist-Maoist 'Democratic Centralism' and the unforgiving discipline of this vanguard
permanent revolutionary party.
Verbally forsaking Revolutionary Democracy in exigent circumstances thus becomes a
noteworthy victory for Revolutionary Democratic discipline. All the while the actual
practice of Revolutionary Democracy remains intact but it has simply been realized that it is
no longer a public relations plus when cash bearing donor nations might actually try to figure
out what it means.
This is all in the spirit of the Nazi-Soviet Pact. Soviet International Socialism and German
National Socialism were bitter enemies until Stalin and Hitler agreed to divide Poland, the
Baltic states and the Balkans between them. By the next day every Socialist / Communist on
earth became an unyielding opponent of world capitalism against the suddenly blameless
German Reich - depending on geography this was under punishment of death.
The tragic experiences that humanity has had with rulers and their justifications was noted
long ago by Voltaire a long time ago when he said
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.