The Absurdity of Arguments and the Need to Deal With them constructively

by T. Goshu
It is this month that the Republic of South Africa has said goodbye to her truly patriotic and her greatest statesman, Nelson Mandela once and for all. Of course, the goodbye (farewell) is not to his legacy of paying a huge sacrifice for the realization of freedom which has finally been accomplished through “TRUTH FOR RECONCILIATION”; and which was of course the best avenue for a country like South Africa. In other words, although that process was/is not without its own worrisome shortcomings, especially when it comes to making a meaningful change for the betterment of socio-economic lives of black citizens; any other avenue other than “RECONCILIATION AND TOLERANCE” would have been disastrous. I think it is from this perspective that it is safe to say that the way Nelson Mandela dealt with the then apartheid political system was fairly wise and remarkably objective. When I say a farewell once and for all, I mean in terms of physical or bodily farewell, not to the presence and endurance of the great work he has left behind.
Well, I do not want to go into the business of political guess about the question of who would be another self-less statesmen/women to carry on his legacy. But, given what is going on almost in all of  African politics at this moment in time ( South Africa included), I unfortunately do not have any strong reason to be truly optimistic about the possibility of the emergence of a political personality which genuinely internalizes the great legacy of Nelson Mandela.   I am not declaring kind of pessimism that a resolute and well- organized struggle for freedom and justice with an intensive and extensive participation by the people themselves would not create its own relatively honest ,capable and willing leader who could advance the legacy of Nelson Mandela. Absolutely not! What I am trying to reflect is that it will not be easy to have another Mandela in that continent which is being badly infected with ruling elites who are determined to stay in power by suppressing ,if not terrorizing their own people while they “vow and swear” to follow the footstep of Mandela.  It is also not easy to produce another Mandela from dissenting opposition political forces as they themselves are suffering from all kinds of their own troubles. Anyway, the very change for the better, would heavily depend on how the people would play the decisive role and determine their own destiny/fate even with a leadership that is short of carrying on Mandela’s legacy in its full-fledged sense.
I wanted to begin my comment with the above introductory paragraphs because I want to make clear that the viewpoints I am interested to make under the topic I chose are one way or another related to the passing away of the great statesman of our time, Nelson Mandela. What the comment is about and how I want to approach it? Let me proceed and try to make my view points as clear and straight-forward as possible.
Following the death of Nelson Mandela, the SBS Australia (12/10/13) and ESAT (12/11/13) conducted their interviews with the former ruthlessly dictatorial president of Ethiopia, Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam. Although the colonel tried to use the opportunity to present himself as patriotic and revolutionary ex- leader, the main focuses of the interviews were to hear his reflection and feelings about the passing away of Mandela. As Ethiopia was one of the African countries which had a significant role in supporting the struggle against apartheid and the national liberation movements in Southern Africa (both during the reign of Emperor Hailesellasie and the tyrannical rule of the Derg)   , there is nothing wrong to hear from those who either had firsthand information or who wanted to tell their own side of stories. And it goes without saying that looking for these kinds of people wherever they may be and make them talk (interview) about their reflections, viewpoints on occasions such as the one we are talking about is the right thing to do for an independent (free) media both in terms of principle  practical aspect. Yes, the very judgment on whether an interviewee such as Colonel Mengistu is trustworthy, or stupidly arrogant and with no any moral authority should be left to the listeners (the people). I think that was what the SBS Australia and ESAT have done. They did not hold their interviews with the colonel either based on the criteria of whether he was a good/democratic leader or a horrible dictator. Neither their purposes were to reconfirm the political crime he had committed. They neither interviewed him to hear what they wanted to hear nor to please or to disappoint that or this party. I do argue that if we are expecting this type journalism, especially in this 21^st century; we must be either so naïve or intentionally ignorant or else deliberately unconstructive.  Let me reiterate that as independent media, their main objective is to invite individuals or groups to have their own say and leave the rest for public debate and judgment. I think it was clear from the interviews they held with him that given his highest political position he held at the time, it was good to hear what he wanted to say about Nelson Mandela and his association with Ethiopia. That was it! I do not know what is wrong with that. And I do not think blaming, if not black mailing independent media for doing their rightful job does make any sense at all.
To be more specific and straight-forward, let me mention some of the absurd arguments expressed in the form of statement – (“meglecha”), articles, and request for an apology. I do not want here to go into my personal experience during the reign of the military dictatorship to prove that I am one of those who strongly believe that the colonel has neither any moral authority nor any political personality as far as telling the truth about what happened to the Ethiopian people in the 1970s is concerned.  I do not need also to go into my firsthand experience about what went wrong with the leadership of EPRP that had caused a lot of damages to hundreds of thousands of its Youth Wing members, the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Youth League which I belonged to because of making terrible tactical mistakes of applying urban armed struggle. I strongly believe that as any other many chapters of our terribly messed up political history, our political crisis of the 17-years (1970s and 80s) requires a well-settled, matured, rational/realistic, a high level of civility, and above all a forward –looking way of thinking and doing things. I am not that saying those who had committed serious political crime should not be held responsible and accountable.

1. The EPRP (I do not know which faction is this) Radio of Finote Democracy of December 15, 2013 read out “official statement” of the party titled “Making an Effort to Renew the Name of the Main Enemy of the People is a crime”- ( Yehizib Wanna  Telatn Semin Lemades Metar Wonjel Nawu).” What is terribly absurd about “this statement” is not because it condemns the colonel as a horrible former dictator; but it categorically characterizes those independent media which have held interview with him as sympathizers of his criminal acts and records. I do argue that this kind argument (political mentality) does suffer from a very terrible absurdity. And I am sorry to say but I have to say that it is very unfortunate to witness the regurgitation of rhetoric that does not have any meaningful and constrictive value from my compatriots who claim having a long time of political experience.  Although I do not know for how long and for what purpose should we continue with this type of walking, but not forward; I hope those who have still chosen to go with this kind of unproductive way of thinking will change for the better with the help of the innocent people of Ethiopia who truly deserve better.

2. “To Purify Mengistu from Wickedness at the Expense of the Death of Mandela – (Bemandela Mot Mengistun Kegif Lemantsat) “is an article by Beljig Ali (12/15/13). Once again, I sincerely believe that  it is not only suffice to say that there is nothing wrong to strongly condemn anybody ( media or another form of group) that deliberately promotes those who have/had committed political crime but it is also the right thing to do.  The writer has used the case of Hitler’s book which “justifies” his fascistic atrocities against millions of Jews, and incalculable destruction he had caused internationally.  That is a very informative point. He informed us that the right to republish Hitler’s book expires 2015. Yes, there are similarities among all ruthless dictators; and if the writer is trying to show that side of the story when he mentions our case, that is unquestionably true. But, if he is putting the two cases on the same scale for sake of justifying his argument, I think that is a very highly skewed, if not misleading of way making cooperative politics. With regard to the book, my understanding is that it has been available for a long time, and I think the Germans have become seriously concerned about the tendency of using the book as a promoting and provoking weapon by some elements of Hitlerism. And that might be the reason to reconsider the right of republication. This is just to appreciate the writer for sharing the information and the view he has.

When it comes to the case of the interview with colonel Mengistu, I strongly believe arguing against the way the colonel presents himself is the right thing to do. However, the very troubling approach of the writer is well- reflected in his very topic he chose. I do not think coming up with this kind of never talk (interview) a person who did terrible things and who I do not like him or her sounds helpful at all.  Because that is not the sign of civility. What I want to mean by civility is the willingness and ability to deal with people with ideas that are against ours in rational and tolerant manner.  I also want to say that it is the right thing to vehemently comment if there was/is something significant went wrong during the interviews we are talking about.  But, it is absolutely absurd, if not irresponsibly stupid (the idea, not the person is stupid) to declare that, “These mass media try to rebury those compatriots who had been killed cruelly by Mengistu by interviewing Mengistitu.” I am not saying that there are no elements of media that may try to do that kind of dirty job. What I am specifically talking about is the media we are talking about, SBS and ESAT that have held interviews with the colonel just to hear his reflection and view about the Death of Nelson Mangela. Clear and short! I still want to remain optimistic that through very difficult but possible way of doing things, we will overcome, if not minimize the absurdity we found ourselves trapped.

3. Another article was by Tedla Asfaw titled, “ESAT and SBS Australia Radio Should Apologize for Mengistu Hailemariam’s Interview.” Tedla‘s piece of writing redundantly tells us about the political evil-doings of Mengistu Hailemariam as if the journalist of those mass  media who have held their interviews with colonel Mengistu Haliemariam are terribly ignorant about what had been done to Ethiopia and her innocent people during reign of the military junta. His (Tedla’s) uncontrolled rage made him not to see the very purpose of independent mass media: inform the public and play the role in the process of shaping public opinion, do investigative information and create public awareness but leaving the judgment and decision to the public. I wonder if Tedla and others with similar attitudes are telling those media that talking with (interviewing) those who have done wrong including members/supporters of the current ruling circle should be considered as failing the people’s cause. I hear and read that Tedla is an activist, and that is so great and I do not want to discredit his participation as an activist. But I strongly believe activism, in a real sense of the term is not compatible with the attitude and interest to hear only what we want to hear; or we simply hate what we do not agree with. It rather requires sincere willingness and tolerance to listen to others who hold and practice ideas we do not agree with.  What I am trying to say is that one has to show tolerance to what is intolerable endlessly. The point that I am trying to make is that condemning /blaming /blackmailing those independent media for the simple reason that they interviewed the former dictatorial president of Ethiopia is not constructive at all.

4. The last writer who tried hard to the extent of borrowing the saying of Julius Caesar of the Roman Empire (“Et tu, EAST?), is Yilma Bekele (12/20/13). I wonder why he work hard in search of that saying of Caesar. Anyway, that is not the focus of my point. I appreciate his genuine concern and legitimate anger about what the Saudi government has done to our compatriots. Although his expression about the death of Nelson Mandela sounds a bit exaggerated as he (Nelson Mandela) was aged and terminally ill for a considerable period of time, Yilma is right that it was not a good time. I also want say that Yilma’s bitter hate towards Mengistu Hailemariam is well – founded and understood and I am one of those who share his genuine feelings.

The problem of Yilma’s highly emotion-driven, if not highly inflammable rage begins with the very topic he chose, blaming ESAT for the simple reason of interviewing Mengistu Hailemriam.   And that kind of negative attitude has made him just throw any word or phrase that he believes it is good to “bombard” not only ESAT but anybody else he perceives as “sympathizer” of Mengistu hailemriam. I do not need to say something different from what I have already said above about the absurdity of waging irrational, if not nonsensical campaign against those independent mass media people who held the interview we are talking about. Yes, those independent media have to feel free to hold interview with good or bad guys so that the people could be well-informed about who thinks what and who does what. That is how the idea of freedom of expression comes in as far as this particular case we are discussing about is concerned. If this is “little knowledge is dangerous “to Yilma, I have to say the converse might be true. If Yilma is believing that he has a superiority of knowledge, I am afraid he is in a state of self-defeating because this kind of mentality is the sign of dead end. I wish I could have better words to say it. But that is the way it is! Another complaint Yilma tried to express is about “why the interviewer referred to Mengistu as the former President of Ethiopia.”  I do not know how it makes sense to declare that a journalist is either wrong or a sympathizer of a former president because he referred to him as a president. The point is is that being a dictator or something else does not change the fact that he was a president. Leaving aside this, a journalist whose interview is specifically about Nelson Mandela, not the political trouble of the interviewee is not expected to challenge him to extent of referring him dictator. I do not know why we want to see things as simple as the rhetoric we make.

It goes without saying that we all are the products of a society that has never had an opportunity to experience the culture of engaging in a free, tolerant and sustainably constructive argument /conversation and debate. I sincerely believe that we desperately need to strive hard if we want to break the continuity of this undesirable and disruptive way of thinking. The people of Ethiopia cannot afford to continue entreating the political culture of trying to solve the problems of this very dynamic time of ours with a very backward thinking and methods.  I want conclude with the following quotation I have borrowed form a book, “How to Argue and Win Every Time by author Gerry Spence (1995). He says, “We fail to make a successful argument because we affix certain locks to ourselves, locks that imprison our arguments, or … locks that bar us from adapting a winning stance.”