More in disgust than in defense - the article on Dr Taye.
By: D. Kebede
It was with feelings and emotions of surprise and disgust that I greeted the article by A. Ferede, about Dr Taye Wolde Semayat, which was posted on Ethiopiafirst.com.
For academically unsophisticated people, like myself, when abstracted/condensed a criticism or comment, in the quality of the issues its seeks to address, has generally two conceptions: one is criticism/comment as gembi (constructive), the other as gotach/afresh (negative/deconstructive). It is obvious that the former seeks to facilitate progress (in terms of qualitative processes for the better and higher) whereas the latter does exactly the opposite. Of course some comments could also be of neutral kind, speculative, explanatory and so forth. Most importantly there are some basic standards/expectations, both ethical and evidential within which criticisms/serious comments should be marshaled to have credibility and due attention. Within this broad standard there are also issues related to the timing of the criticism, the scope, proportionality of it and that of priority, particularly in a society like ours where everything is at stake, there are more immediate and major issues to debate and exchange criticisms/comments. In addition, there is the issue of this tension between the individual's "freedom" to express his/her opinions and the interests of the wider society. When criticism lacks substance, a sense of timing, priority and proportionality, then it is bound to be seen to be failing some basic standards. When it does so, not only could it slow down progress and be damaging but it could also become a laughing-stock. It is precisely this A. Ferede's article has turned out to be.
I looked at A. Ferede's article within the two types of criticism and the other factors briefly outlined, such as ethical and evidential standards, timing and proportionality. Let the leader judge me. But as far as I could make it out I could not resist the temptation of concluding that the article remains essentially prejudicial, gossipy and petty, with strong feelings of hate or fear or both expressed against one of the Ethiopia's best sons. Thes fact that these insidious comments were unleashed at the dawn of this man's "freedom' from a 6 year jail defies belief. Dr taye's crime was standing up to the ruling woyane clique with his head high, looking woyane in their eyes and confronting them with quintessential Ethiopian courage, dignity, pride and determination. All he had at his immediate arsenal in those dark times were his love for his country, his unwavering self-respect and the respect for teacher's and students. The price he was prepared to pay was his life, the most precious and sanctimonious thing only exceptionally courageous and principled people, such as Professor Asrat, put at risk in the defense of the motherland and its essential characteristics. Of course many Ethiopians have served even longer jail terms and perhaps in similar conditions, with many still languishing, and many others having lost their lives, simply for standing against the excesses of successive authoritarian regimes. In that sense Dr Taye is not any different. But what makes him so unique is that he went back home from his trip abroad, knowing full well that his life was in grave danger and he came out from prison wiser, with his head still held high and with a burning conviction. Equally important is his survival of woyane's onslaught of insidious forms of torture, without breaking, in addition to being magnanimous, as he keeps saying, that he has no malice, no grudges against his captors, who sliced away a six-year chunk of his life.
The root of author's grossly unfair comments relate to his trip to Ethiopia, leading a delegation during which he sought to visit Dr Taye who was then languishing in prison. Dr Taye was the at the mercy of his captors for his daily survival, deprived of decent food, proper sleep, minimum standard of hygiene, being unable to do some of the basic things many (including A. Ferede) take for granted as and when he needs them, such as walking, seeing day light, winter rain, unable to see sun sets and sun rises, not knowing what might happen to him at night, in the morning, during the day, in the afternoon and in the evening, living each minutiae of his life as it comes, with little control over any aspects of it, not able to go to the toilet when he needs, not knowing what he might eat for breakfast, if there was one, for lunch for supper, not being sure about who might be allowed to visit him, what might happen if and when he gets ill. All he had was his Ethiopian spirit, a powerful instinct of fighting injustice. It is in this situation the author purports that he wanted to talk to Dr Taye and he was refused. The reader could judge the author's priorities.
The author therefore had a chip on his shoulder and waited for the time when he could retaliate against Dr Taye whose behaviour had dared to upset his feelings of grandeur. There came San Jose when the self-centered author confronted Dr Taye in a 25 minute conversation. Following a further disappointment, with yet again bruised ego, the author unleashed a vitriolic slander, making reference to an Ethiopian saying, "lesew mot anesew". As to the interpretation of what this saying might be alluding to, I will leave it for the reader.
I have attended public meetings and I have spoken to Dr Taye in his trip in the USA and Europe. Meeting him for the first time, I have found him as someone who speaks out his mind in a plain language and with no fear whatsoever. His messages are crystal clear and unambiguous; he has his priorities set, which are a better working condition for teachers, education for all, the respect for human rights and the rule of law in a democratic Ethiopia where its peoples continue to live in a mutual co-existence and in equality and that poisonous ethnic politics of the incumbent Government are consigned to the junk room of history. His messages are preEthiopians.
Even if one accepts that A. Fered's account was true, and that it was the whole truth, then would it still justify such slanderous garbage, presented upon this man's release from a 6-year jail? One could not help feeling that such gestures could mainly come from one source, namely the enemies of a democratic Ethiopia. These peoples' interest lie in maintaining ethnic/linguistic/tribal stratification as the basis for politics. But such gestures would only sharpen Dr Taye's resolve, as he knows full well that people who fear him would continue to go to great lengths to silence him. He would also be acutely aware that slander is at the bottom of these peoples' arsenal.
I chose my article as 'more in disgust than in defense' owing to the fact that I do not believe Dr Taye needs any defense for, in the first place, a defense would imply that there is something to defend where there is none and, second implication that, the article is of substantive and credible nature that a response would be appropriate to facilitate progress for the better. If anything, the article is mistimed, disproportional, unethical and uncultured and definitely not a priority, all the more reason to label it as purely a slander, thrown at a hero.
[Opinions in this article are solely that of the writer.]