Some concerned Ethiopians who have read my article raised very legitimate and interesting questions. That is, the importance of analysing the mental problem within the socioeconomic formation of our country. Since every society has its own peculiarity, it is very important to concentrate on particular issues rather than giving generalized analysis which may not explain the particular problem. On the other hand, it is legitimate to work with analogies to understand the different psychological make up in different societies. Since there are well established philosophical systems that are accepted by all scholars, we Ethiopians should not ignore or reject them as if they do not have any relevance in explaining our mental structures, the way we think and perceive objective realities. To work with analogies or with already established philosophical systems is very important, because they help us to understand why certain societies have well organized structures, while others do not. There exit natural like social laws which every society must practice; and the ultimate fate of those societies which do not accept these principles of harmony and social order will be chaos and disintegration. They will destroy their natural environments, and will be governed by forces that deepen the already established chaotic social order.

There is an accepted fact regarding the mental structure of the human being in general. All human beings irrespective of their racial differences have the same mental structures. Due to the different social and historical processes in different societies, the way of thinking and perceiving things develop differently. Likewise, how different societies organize themselves and invent new instruments to cope with the vagaries of nature and raise the productivity of agriculture or any kinds of activities, depends on their ability to abstract and invent new instruments. No society has developed independently of other communities, and as such trade and other cultural contacts have contributed to the development of mental structures in different societies. Those societies that had trade contacts at the early stages with other societies could develop easily, and built cities and sophisticated social structures. In this respect, there are well documented researches on how far trade contributed to the development of the European capitalism. Through trade came other cultures and ways of living, which had revolutionized the social structures in many European societies. It is not true, as some imagine that Europeans have developed everything by themselves without borrowing ideas from other societies or without having trade contacts with other societies. In societies where such kinds of far trade activities were absent or did not develop to such a level to revolutionize the productive forces, remained backward. Recently, there are two books published by two different authors that prove the thesis that the European capitalism, and hence the European civilization is inconceivable without the Greek civilization. These two authors prove also that the Greek civilization is inconceivable without the Egyptian and the Babylonian civilization.

Coming to the concept of mental, as one of the readers has rightly suggested, it should not be understood as a psychological problem. It may be wrong to use the concept mental when one tries to analyse such kinds of issues, like the static nature of a given society, and the psychological make up of the people. Though there are similarities between mind and mental, I think the concept mind explains better the issue that concerns us. There are also differences between mind and soul, while mind is divided into three different parts. That is, the intellectual part, the intelligible and the rational part. All human beings have all three parts inherent in their mind setup, whereas the degree of intelligence varies from person to person. We all have different kinds of capacities in apprehending things. Some are intelligent in mathematics, while others are intelligent in other things. This kind of differentiation is natural, and it is essential for our social and cultural developments. That means, as there are social divisions of labour in every society, there is also a mental division of labour which enables us to invent and develop different instruments or take part in different activities. The development of our intellectual capacities and profound thinking depend on how we come into contact, say with any kind of education system. Alexander Humboldt, the German philosopher and natural scientist had observed this when he was in Latin America in the early 19th century. He lived there for about 5 years with Indians, and had researched not only their way of lives, but also the natural habitats of the places he visited. He came to the conclusion that, because the Indians lacked proper education, they could not develop science and technology, and hence they could not improve their lifestyles. It is therefore simple to understand that trade contacts at the early stages, and proper education can have impacts on the mental development of a given society. That means, as some societies are familiar with other cultures, and if cultural contacts are strengthened, for example through marriage relationships, the chance of development is greater, and such kinds of communities will develop better powers of thinking. The myth that, for example the Europeans are purely white and are not mixed with other races is a pure lie. If one studies the German society, it is intermixed with other races, if we are allowed to use the terminology race. The fact that 2/3 of the population was destroyed during the 30 years of war, the remaining feudal lords were compelled to import labour from the Middle East and other areas, where the population was not affected by war. One observes that there are Slavic and Jewish names in many German families. One can also trace that in areas where at early stages far trade activities had flourished and the communities in question had cultural and trade contacts, the people of these areas are open minded and creative.

Some have complained about my article, because they do not want to understand the message of my writing. Some suggest that we Ethiopians do not need such kinds of "rubbish things" like philosophy, because what Ethiopia needs is only a political struggle, and to get rid of the Woyane regime. Such kind of a cry was also common during the late student movement in the 70s, because what was needed that time was to topple down the regime of Emperor Haile Selassie and Colonel Mengistu Hailemariam. We know the consequences of such kind of a political struggle which ended in total anarchy, and bloodshed. The fact that few "heroes" shamelessly focused only on the political power, and forgot the necessity of raising the political and social consciousness of the masses, had produced unnecessary contradictions that were culminated into unnecessary war and bloodshed. Those who were eager to seize political power remained at the end in vain. Goethe and Schiller, after they had studied the consequences of the French Revolution distanced from such kinds of adventures and murderous struggle which did not bring anything. According to their views, only when the human mind is changed through proper education one can bring real human civilization. As Schiller and Schopenhauer affirm, nature does not know how to jump. Likewise, societies could not be easily transformed from one stage to the other by revolutionary means or through bloodshed, but only through evolutionary processes. The city of Weimar is the result of such kind of a philosophical struggle. In this case, philosophy is very crucial and enables those who are engaged in political struggle to understand the complexity of their society. After all, philosophy is the basis of all knowledge. Those societies that are not engaged in philosophical discourse will at the end lose the vision of building a harmonious life. Their fate will be disintegration and chaos.

There are some important elements that we have to realize when we deal with a philosophical discourse, or when we use philosophy as a methodology to analyse the human mind. There are at least three ways which could shape the human mind. The first is the materialist approach, which insists that, the thinking ability of the human mind can be determined by the given socioeconomic formation or objective conditions. Plato, while by no means rejects such an approach, insists that Idea is the central point that governs our abstractions and the power of thinking. According to him, everybody is born with knowledge, and what one needs is to develop this or to bring it forth. This method is correct when we see the entire human civilization. All human beings have developed any kind of instrument without ever knowing the existence of such an instrument. For example, without having seen a plough they have invented a plough. Of course some societies have copied such kind of instrument from other societies. The third method is a positivist approach, which is sense perception. The human mind can only copy what it sees. The positive or the empiricist method dominates today’s science. The positive science is also known as a descriptive approach. One does not need to know how things have developed or their origin, but what one needs is to describe them or to formulate them statistically. That is the true source of knowledge. The spread of such a quasi scientific approach in many Third World Countries has created confusion, and many governments formulate and implement policies that contradict the lives of their people, and create chaotic conditions. The free market economic policy that Third World governments implement is based on positive science. Some statistical data are enough to formulate a market economic policy. We know the consequences of such a policy. Plato rejects such a methodological approach to study the complex nature of a given situation, because this hinders us to know the root cause of the problem. According to Plato, by applying the dialectical method we can approximately understand the origin of a given problem. This in turn helps us to find approximately an appropriate solution. That means, by posing questions again and again, we can understand the inner laws that dictate a given situation.

Coming to the concrete situation in Ethiopia, it is very difficult to understand, why such a country with a history of over three thousand years remained so backward, and why science and technology could not develop? Because historical writings over Ethiopia are detached from the material conditions of the people, and their psychological make up, it is very difficult to understand the living conditions of our people during the Middle Ages. By that, I mean it is not researched as a historical and a social process, like that of the European social structure. I am not a historian, and do not have the methodology to analyse the Ethiopian history, but from what I know, it is not systematically researched as a historical and social process. In order to avoid misunderstandings, we must separate historical facts from historical and social processes. I mean by social processes the development of the productive forces and the differentiation of the people and their roles in the society. One aspect is the degree of the division of labour that exists, and the participation of the different social groups in this kind of division of labour. In addition to this, the cultural development of the society that reflects the moral and ethical standards of the people is a part of historical and social process. Ethical and moral values are manifestations of the cognitive power of the people which live in various parts of the country. City buildings with sophisticated architecture that can bring the society together and give it the sense of pride and belongings to his country, and the development of literature and other forms of expressions are some of the standards that characterise the degree of moral and ethical values of a given society. In historical writings, such ethical and moral values or standards are not mentioned or deliberately undermined, as if they do not belong to the categories of historical writings. That does not mean that we do not have history. Every society has history. What I want to say is, from the perspective of genuine human civilization, the civilization process that has started somewhere in the northern part of Ethiopia could not develop in a way it should have been developed. Though the rise of Kingdoms and the development of the Ethiopian religion are signs of the beginning of true civilization, this civilization could not develop and expand to the higher forms of human civilization.

There is an explanation to this, and this kind of explanation is well recognized. As I said before, if we apply the methodology of analogy or comparative study, we can understand why our society could not develop in such a way as other societies, or for example like that of the Greek, or later day of Constantinople. As we know, by living aside the Axumite civilization, the feudal relationship had developed more or less in the 13^th century. This is just at the time when in many European societies the feudal mode of production became a norm and a way of life. Like in Europe, the Ethiopian society knew serfdom, which is equivalent to Gult. The difference between the European and the Ethiopian serfdom is that, the European serfdom is harsh, and is more or less a kind of slave relationship. Such a kind of relationship and the burden of the peasantry in many European countries brought about peasant revolts. As the peasants strengthened their struggle, they had gained more bargaining power. Secondly, the European feudalism was confronted with new ideas that came through far trade. The development of handicraft activities, cities, and the differentiation of the division of labour had fastened the erosion of the system. As new social forces emerged, and money economy had spread, the relationship between the peasants and the feudal lords had changed. Those merchants who had accumulated money could create new relationships, and even began dictating the lives of the feudal lords. As the feudal lords had only accumulated land, they borrowed money from the new merchant class in order to buy exotic goods which were imported from Africa and Asia. As new division of labour had been introduced, and the putting-out system became a norm, merchant capitalism began dictating the direction of the societies. In Germany, the well known merchant class, the Fugger dynasty, had dominated the lives of many millions people in many areas. Kings and Princes were borrowing money from this money holder class in order to finance wars and to build palaces and market places. That means, feudalism was confronted from all sides, ideologically, politically and economically. Though many scholars had interpreted the development of capitalism differently, it is suffice to say here that without new ideas and new forces that are equipped with better ideas, there is no social progress. On the other hand, one should not be misled or believe that things had developed smoothly in all European countries. What is important here, and what we have to bear in mind is that societies that are not confronted with new and better ideas could neither produce new social forces nor develop as an organic whole. They could not develop cities and market places that attract people with different ideas from different places. They could neither invent new technologies to improve the productivity of their labour. That means, such societies remain static and are not ready to accept new ideas.

The problematic of understanding the Ethiopian feudal structure is that it had remained at least for more than 800 years without having real confrontation with new ideas. Among the different classes, there had never been social division of labour and contacts. The developments of the productive forces were at their rudimentary stages. Trade and handicraft activities were seen as abnormal, or could only be practiced by minority groups, which were not allowed to communicate with other classes. Marriage with other groups and social mobility were forbidden. In addition to this, Ethiopia did not have any trade contacts with the outside world; if it did, it was insignificant. From the European history, we know that through marriages and trade contacts, the power of thinking of the people could develop. To this, in many European Churches, there had always been new thinking and challenges, which eroded the European feudalism. Many Priests were eager to know the secret of the Greek philosophy, and at the end they had reconciled the religious thought with the Greek philosophy. As we know, many inventions came from the Catholic religion, or from scientists who firmly believed in God and in the idea of the Catholic religion. It is not necessary to mention here the names of all known scientists and philosophers, who were scientists and religious men at the same time. In comparison to this, the Ethiopian orthodox religion remained aloof to new ideas, and could not develop new ways of thinking by it self. We know from the writings of certain Kings that at least 19 days in the month, the Christian peasants were forbidden to work and plough their land. We also know that the philosopher Zera Yaekob was harassed and chased because he began questioning the teachings of the priests which arrested the minds of the peasants. This way of thinking remained for a longer time unchanged, and had arrested the minds of our people, especially in the northern part of the country. We cannot deny this, and we can see how our brothers and sisters are living to this day like during the Middle Ages. I want to warn my readers that I am not against the Ethiopian orthodox religion. I firmly believe that religion is very important in any society. As we are not only materially oriented, we also need religious lives. For me religion has some binding elements in any society. But too much dogmatism hinders us to think further and develop new means. It is therefore very important for the Christians and Muslims in Ethiopia to translate and teach the Greek philosophy as well. The Muslims of the 7^th and 8^th century in some European countries did this, and had contributed to the development of science and technology. If we go to the southern part of Spain, we witness the mighty of the Muslim philosophers and their contribution to that particular area. The third greatest Cathedral of the world that I saw was built by Muslim architectures. Such kind of architectural beauty manifests the cognitive power of the Muslim and Christian leaders of that time. This was only possible, because the Muslim philosophers acquainted themselves with a special knowledge that had elevated their power of thinking to the highest degree. The spiritual power and their belief in their religion helped them to erect such a monumental work.

When we come again to the Ethiopian feudalism, it does not mean that it has the same impacts in all areas. The above analysis is true only for the northern part of Ethiopia, where feudalism had begun at early stages, and where the Orthodox religion has been dominating the lives of these people over many hundred years. As we see in many areas in the Amhara region and in Tigray, the people there have been living scattered over many centuries. The fact that these two areas are not infiltrated by new ideas and are not confronted with different lifestyles that could transform their repetitive ways of living, they simply become the victim of natural catastrophes, and could not pose questions why they are condemned to hunger, and at the end compelled to run away from their villages. The way of ploughing the land and their relationships with the environment remained unchanged until today. The destruction of the forests in these two areas could be associated with the feudal mode of way of life, and with the static nature of the lifestyles that the peasants have been practicing over many generations. Such a dispersed way of life and the absence of strong community ties make them suspicious, and are not ready to accept new ideas. In certain areas in the southern part too, where the pastoralist mode way of life has been dominating for generations, the people there too could not develop better divisions of labour. What is amazing here, is the peculiar positions of the Gurages in Ethiopia. As we see today, if not all, the majority of the Gurages are the most active force in Ethiopia. They are achievement oriented, and could imitate new technologies easily. They are ready to engage themselves in any work, and can easily accumulate money and develop themselves. I cannot explain here what makes the Gurages active and energetic, and those Ethiopians who are specialized in anthropology, psychology and sociology have the chance to investigate and study the peculiarity of the Gurage community in Ethiopia. What I can say here is, -if we have a good government in Ethiopia- one can help this ethnic group financially and with other means, so that it could develop new technologies. Like this, we can study the different abilities of many ethnic groups and bring them together, and develop a new division of labour that can promote social and technological development across the country.

When we come to the present day of Ethiopia, which is undeniably modernized by Emperor Menelik II, the modernization process is not that much revolutionary as we have imagined until now. It is not the fault of the Emperor to follow a more aggressive path to bring radical changes in our society. Though he was in a better position in comparison with that of the situation of Emperor Tewodros, the social condition, however, was not suitable to bring about dynamic changes. All the feudal intrigues we know, and the absence of new and dynamic forces that could catch up the modernizing idea of Emperor Menelik II, hindered him to materialize at least his limited revolutionary idea. In addition to this, foreign forces had sabotaged and interfered in the Ethiopian politics to manipulate the intriguing power struggle for their use. The rise of Emperor Menilik II and his modernization effort was at a time when the European powers had accumulated not only wealth, but also very sophisticated manipulation power. They could use their strong positions to sabotage any development efforts by weak nations, like that of Ethiopia. In this case, they had done everything to use the weak position of the ruling class not to articulate in nation building. On the other hand, if we compare the Ethiopian modernization process with that of Japan in 1868, we could witness the effectiveness of the Meji dynasty in modernizing not only the Japanese economy, but also the political and ideological setup of the country. In this case, the modernization of Ethiopia during the era of Emperor Menelik II lacks so many things. Among this is a proper education system that could elevate the power of thinking of the ruling class, and produce a dynamic force which could carry on the idea of the Emperor and develop by itself new and better ideas.

If we study the contribution of Emperor Haile Selassie, it is not that much modernization in the true sense of the word. In comparison with both Emperor Tewodros and Emperor Menelik II, Emperor Haile Selassie cannot be called a modernizer. He feared that if the majority of the Ethiopian people are educated, his power could be challenged. From his perspective, it is sufficient to recruit a new bureaucratic class that can execute his orders. The marginalization of Ethiopia, and its integration into the capitalist world division of labour was effected during his reign. While Emperor Haile Selassie had ample opportunities in the 40s and the 50s to modernize Ethiopia, and develop a strong home market based on science and technology, he had concentrated on few cosmetic changes that had strengthened the feudal relationship. The monetization of the economy had created new social relationships that compelled the rising new class not to invest in job creating productive activities. Hence, money could not establish a functional and accumulation relationship between the real sector and other economic activities. The spread of not well organized bars and tee houses, and the development of market places which are not esthetical and organized have strengthened this new relationship. These became by themselves breeding grounds for bad habits and confused ideas. The peripheral economy of the 50s and the 60s had produced a unique psychological make up in the Ethiopian society, which is trickery and intriguing. On the political level, the new social force that had gained new economic and social status, instead of achievement oriented, satisfied with what it had gained, blocked by itself any development effort. In the mean time, due to its social status, it has distanced itself from the rest of the society. In short, the education system which was introduced during the Emperor time could not sharpen the mind of this new social force. It could not become innovative and was not engaged in nation-building. Its isolated way of life, and its behaviour of downgrading other classes, had created social imbalances in the Ethiopian society. The contradiction of the system, the introduction of a corrupted capitalistic structure could not be resulted in expanded capitalist accumulation. Since the new system was organized in isolation of the other economic sectors, its trickle-down effect was very meagre. As this system became deep-rooted, a new merchant class that was not industrious had emerged and remained on the same status. This new merchant class could not convert its accumulated money to real investments, and as such it could not become competitive. Such a process of marginalization of the Ethiopian society has its imprints on the psychological make up of the people. Only in a dynamic atmosphere, where different and ordered activities are taking place, and where the principle of social harmony is the rule of the system, individuals strive to find new means to compete and improve their lives. In this case the Ethiopian economy of the 50s and the 60s was not dynamic. It is just simply a breeding ground of new and ungoverned situation. Therefore, the two governments which have succeeded the Haile Selassie government cannot handle differently. Though the feudal system of the Emperor and his ruling style do not seem that much aggressive in comparison with that of the two succeeding systems, there is a continuation of the same kind of divide and rule system which the Haile Selassie regime has been practicing over four decades to strengthen his system. The state structure and the classes that were produced during his time are also the social bases of the two succeeding systems. The fact that both have changed their names and call themselves Marxists and Albanists, does not mean that they have a completely scientific approach to cope with the existing social and economic problems of our country. It is therefore very important to understand here that only objective realities and social traditions that are passed from one generation to the other are determining factors that shape our behaviour. As Freud and others have proved, the character of any person can be shaped until he is five or six years old.

To my understanding, the Ethiopian student movement that has rebelled against the feudal order could not grasp the entire social and cultural complex of our society. It did not take the chance to study the psychological make up of the new social force. Since it was occupied with some revolutionary jargons, and acquainted itself with the Marxist linear way of thinking, developed by Stalin, the student-movement could not contribute any scientific methodology to understand our problems, and cope with such complex problems, which were produced and reproduced during the time of Emperor Haile Selassie. By applying force as the only method of seizing power, it has undermined any intellectual discourse. Some of them were arrogant, and they could not hear the advices of others. They firmly believed in the superiority of their Marxist understanding which is the only theory that can explain the social reality of Ethiopia. They thought that by applying such a theory they could transform Ethiopia by leaps and bounds to a better form of social organization. On the other hand, it is not correct to accuse the entire student-movement for the bloody situation which our country had to experience. There were reasonable and well-educated personalities, but they were overwhelmed by the situation that has darkened the minds of thousands of young people. However, the bloody revolution, if we call it a revolution, has created a situation of fear and non self-reliance. Instead of bringing the intellectual force together what the country had produced in the 50s and the 60s, the student movement created division within itself, and at the end it had eliminated itself. As was supposed, the bureaucratic class and imperialism could not be defeated. How can one defeat its enemy, if one disperses its forces, and fight against each other? As history proves, only if a given society combines its force, and is lead by brilliant ideas, it can make history and determine over its own fate. This has not been the case during the revolutionary period in the 70s and the 80s. In a society, where different groups create their imagined world, and hide themselves behind this ideologically masked world, every group thinks and believes that it is doing the right thing. Instead of following a scientifically proven method of liberating a society, it follows the path of sectarianism, which undermines collective ideas, and at the end creates chaotic conditions. Undoubtedly, the bloody revolution in Ethiopia has until today its imprints in the minds of so many Ethiopians that have participated during that time. Most of them have never changed themselves, and still think like the olden days.

After the bloody war, the Military regime with its political cadres, that hate true knowledge, began complicating the social matrix of our society. The new cadre class intoxicated by the power it had gained, opened war against all forces which it believed that they could endanger its new gained social and political status. The intriguing bureaucrat by adjusting itself to the new situation began eroding the power of the regime with the hope that it can install itself on the power with the help of the Americans. The Americans have promised the bureaucratic class that they are ready to develop Ethiopia like South Korea, if the regime is toppled down. From all these, we could learn that how the psychological make up of the bureaucratic class is corrupted, and could not think profoundly in order to understand the merit and demerits of its own thinking and handlings. Since this class is not brought up within an atmosphere, where scientific and open discussions are the rule of the system, its thinking is slippery, and its handling is very destructive. It does not have principles and moral values as guidelines which help it to perform its work in the interest of the entire people. By developing egoistic motives, and dreaming that it can gain power and social status that can elevate it above the others, it takes any measure that could undermine the social integrity of our people, and the sovereignty of our country. What the bureaucrats had in mind was to topple down the supposed communist regime and to bring Ethiopia under the total control of the American Imperialism. But in its futile attempt, the bureaucratic class failed, and it had understood later that it was intrigued by the Americans. On the other hand, the new cadre class by totally allying itself with the regime, harassing and chasing the supposed democratic forces, thought that it could save the life of the regime.

What we have gained after all these kinds of bureaucratic intrigues and killings by the cadres is a totally disoriented people and country. That the TPLF could gain force and fight the huge military apparatus of the military regime can only be understood within the above context. Living aside the supposed strength of the TPLF, we can understand the mentality of those who are now in power within the above feudalistic perception. The Prime Minister and others who are surrounding him are behaving like this not because they are originated from Tigray or because they are Stalinists, as few think and believe, but the social atmosphere and the entire psychological make up which was created in the 50s and the 60s are compelling them to do so. Because they grew up in an atmosphere of fear and suspicion, their thinking must be intriguing. They did not grow up in a social atmosphere where collective thinking and social action to solve problems were the social binding elements of the society. They grew up in a socially and culturally isolated atmosphere where profound thinking is not the norm of the society. When there is a wide-spread marginalized economy, certain groups and individuals create certain kinds of behaviours and instruments, which help them to elevate above the society and practice their dreams. To do this, they take any advantage from all forces, even if this contradicts their principles; if we assume that the EPRDF regime has a principle. To accuse that the present regime is Stalinist by nature, this kind of conclusion will mislead us and hinder us not to grasp the entire complex situation that our country has drawn itself into. Though I cannot endorse the method of Stalin and what he had developed and applied to rule the Soviet Union and the mass killings, which he had pursued, one should not and cannot compare the Meles regime with that of Stalin. While Stalin built a huge system based on science and technology, and could defend his country by defeating Hitler, the Meles regime has been pursuing a neo-liberal policy which undermines science and technology, and has the inherent capacity to pauperize our people.

The most important aspect to understand here is not the process how the EPRDF regime has come to power, but what it has been doing over the last 18 years to hold on to the power, and weaken the Ethiopian nation-state. In this case, there are no essential differences between the Military regime and the EPRDF government. What we see and observe is a difference in form. As there were brutal military and civil bureaucrats who opposed peaceful and constructive changes, the EPRDF people cannot be different in their thinking and handlings. As they are the products of that society, their behaviour and handlings are not governed by any principle which could bring social and cultural unity among our people. Only those who think great, and are shaped with great ideas, have historical agenda. That means, a coherent nation-state with a variety of cultural and scientific features can be built when a certain group is equipped with unique knowledge. America was built as a nation-state, because personalities like Benjamin Franklin, Abraham Lincoln, Hamilton and others had scientific ideas, by which they could win over those separatist forces. In Europe too, all nation-states could develop only when certain peculiar personalities had encyclopaedic knowledge, and by applying this knowledge they could bring the dispersed forces and combine and use them for historical purposes. The German nation was inconceivable without the idea of Leibnitz, Schiller, Goethe, Lessing, and the Humboldt families. Without Friedrich List and other patriotic forces, the industrialization of Germany was not possible. Germany was not built on the principles of market economy, but only by strictly following an inward looking strategy to bring new energy. In this case, we do not have to expect too much from the EPRDF regime and its adherents.

The dilemma of our society is that some hard core Ethiopians who claim that they are struggling for the cause of our country, do not want to hear new ideas. They do not want to study and find out the causes of our backwardness. They think and believe that only shouting could save Ethiopia from disintegration. They think and believe that when this regime is toppled down, they will see a prosperous Ethiopia, where everything goes smoothly. They believe that only through liberal democracy, which is not well defined and analysed, could Ethiopia become a democratic country. They do not believe in social and institutional reforms that could bring real civilization. They do not believe in well organized cities and sophisticated social infrastructure that could benefit the entire people. They do not believe in middle class politics, which could bring real and systematic industrialization. In short, their liberal democracy cannot transform our present day Ethiopia to higher forms of cultural and social organizations that guarantee true freedom and better living standards. In the name of liberal democracy and market economy, the Ethiopian masses will be again alienated, and we will see a divided society. We see a society which will not be culturally renewed, but confused like in many Latin American countries.

When I say our problem is a mental one, I mean we cannot try to understand things in their complex situations. We do not want to understand how things are interrelated, and how different things within one system produce certain mechanisms that have the capacity of blocking new ideas which can revolutionize the awkward system, and transform it into higher forms of social organization. Since any society has the potential of producing certain mechanisms which are dangerous, and could create social imbalances, it must be checked from time to time, so that it cannot be out of control. From my observation and readings of political writings about Ethiopia, some Ethiopians have developed new ways that are not critical, and do not help us to build a coherent system. There is a way of thinking in the Ethiopian political discourse, which is not suitable for further discussions. It seems that certain elements try to bring the political course into their own direction, which can block scientific arguments, and which can lead us at the end to a monolithic idea. Because we want to see quick results, we concentrate on things which are not that much relevant, or could not enable us to understand and solve the existing problems. I am not saying that we are not intelligent. Nor do I claim that I am intelligent. What I want to say and stress is, we do not accept that there are different theories to explain one thing. We close the door for other ideas, and think that few individuals could solve the complex problems of our society. We worship few individuals. Instead of trying to liberate our minds, and find a new avenue that could bring genuine civilization and social harmony in our society, we direct our God given intelligence to unnecessary actions. When we have some familiarities with different ideas, we can draw a lesson and take the appropriate one which can help us to explain the objective realities and the psychological make up of our people that are prevailing in our present day Ethiopia. What we do not have to forget is that each of us has its own value. We are not free from moral and ethical norms. All theories or the scientific methodologies we know are value oriented. There is no value-free science. Hence, according to our inclination towards this or that methodology, we can analyse certain situations and find appropriate answers. It is good that we do not have similar ideas. But as human beings, and the citizen of that downtrodden country, we must find a common agenda to work together and build a prosperous society. I think we all want to see a developed Ethiopia. But what prevents us is our mind setup which is not inherited by birth, but which we are accustomed knowingly or unknowingly not to see things beyond the objective realities. We do not dear to raise questions, why things happen like this, and why they could not develop differently. It is up to us to ask our selves to find the right avenue which can lead us on the right path. If we close our minds, God cannot help us. He has created eyes for us to see. He has given us the power of thinking to change our environment, for better and not for worse. We have hands to work, that help us to move mountains if we want, as the Chinese say. What we need is the will to change ourselves. Only through will, which is great in its aspiration, we can build a beautiful Ethiopia. We Ethiopians alone can bring true change. No outside force brings us change. As Bismarck, the first Chancellor of Germany said, between two nations, there is no friendship. There is only a relationship of interest. Hence, America cannot save Ethiopia. America needs to save itself, maybe with the help of President Barack Obama.

The problem of democratic institutions must be understood from the perspective of our social and political consciences. Today many Third World Countries and governments claim that that they have democratic institutions. They held democratic elections either every four or five years. What we see in reality is the concentration of power and wealth in the hands of few individuals or families. In most Third World Countries, where democratic elections have taken place, there is no improvement in the lives of many millions of people. All hopes of the 80s and the 90s for the billions of peoples across the globe, where so-called democratic elections have taken place, today the people of these countries are living in abject poverties. As long as we wish such kinds of democratic elections that could not bring substantial changes in the lives of our people, it is better not to participate in any political struggle.

When we come to Ethiopia, the problem of democracy and the existence of democratic institutions must be analysed from the above perspectives. In the last 18 years, many individuals and organizations have emerged and gave different names to their parties. Few call themselves liberal democrats. Some call themselves social democrats. All these organizations, with different names, but in essence the same, could not tell us why they have chosen this or that name. By engaging themselves in political discussions, they could not convince us which is the best one to bring a just social order in our country. What I observe is that we simply follow them without questioning the method of their struggles, and the essence of their programs. The name of the party is not important, but the character and the moral principles of the individuals that determines their democratic values. Giving names like liberal democracy or social democracy cannot convert them into real democrats. In this case, what we have to ask and research is not their programs, but their political biographies and characters which are very important for building democratic institutions.

From this perspective, what Ethiopia and the Ethiopian people wish is not simply a regime change. They wish and have been longing for a system that can bring stability and give them the sense of belonging to their own country. They need a government that guarantees them true freedom, and does not alienate itself from them. What the Ethiopian people want is a regime that shows them the true path of civilization, and let them participate in all development activities. The Ethiopian people do not wish a government that practices neo-liberal economic policies that destroy their livelihood, and make them appendage of foreign forces. The Ethiopian people want to see that the sovereignty of their country must be maintained and not want a regime that is dependent on foreign forces. In this case, democratic rights and democratic institutions must not be seen isolated from the above factors.

If the above analysis is clear, the necessity of democratic institutions is not that much questionable. What is important and what we have to bear in mind is the importance of the courage to change ourselves. We have to develop certain value systems in our minds. We must have moral values and ethics in our minds. As educated persons, we must be ready to understand the challenges of our society. When we are open to discuss all our political and social problems without fear, we are ready to bring democratic changes. To my knowledge, until now the Ethiopian state system has not been well studied. From Plato to Leibnitz and Schiller, all have studied the nature of the state and how one could organize a just and esthetical system, if he wants to bring real civilization and harmony within a given society. The Marxists have their own version about the nature of the state, and how one could organize it. The best theoretical analyses about the capitalist state, and how it is organized, is well analysed by Nickos Poulantzas. When we come to Ethiopia we have to discuss this and other subjects instead of concentrating on abstract ideas, like liberal democracy, the rule of law, and election, that could not bring real changes to our people.

At the end, I want to say some things in order to have clear understandings about ourselves. I can understand all the anger and frustration in your minds when you read such kinds of articles, like that of mine. Since in our lives we have different experiences and intellectual traditions, we have developed different perceptions about this world. Maybe, some of us have party inclination, and develop some kinds of loyalty to this or that group or person. When you read this kind of articles, you think that it will distort your political imaginations, and at the end will disperse the forces around you. The intention of my articles in the past has never been to inflict damages, and in the future too, will never have divisive messages.

There are other things which always disturb our minds. We all have passed difficult situations. It is fact that most of you have suffered by the brutal situation in Ethiopia; and the bloody situation has negative impacts on your mind. Maybe, some of you have lost your beloved relatives and friends. In front of you, many of your brothers and sisters were brutally murdered. This kind of terror and mass-killings will have negative impacts on your mentality, and dictates your thinking and handlings. I can understand the wounds what the bloody revolution has left in your souls. Those who had participated in the political struggle and those who were waging wars against our people had never thought that they could damage the spirit of our people. When a person like me, who has never been participated in that political turmoil, writes such kinds of articles, he can bring some kinds of irritations. On the other hand, as an autonomous individual, I have the right to express my idea. I have to write what is right and good, which I believe that can serve the causes of our country, and liberate our people. I do not write to damage any one, but I feel that it is my historical obligation to write this way. If some think that my methodology is false they can criticise me, and I am ready to accept any kind of constructive criticism. It helps me to widen my scope of thought, and we can develop a new discussion culture that helps the new generation to articulate well. Only in this way we can build a prosperous and democratic Ethiopia.

Fekadu Bekele

The writer can be reached at fekadubekele@gmx.de