Ethiopian News, Current Affairs and Opinion Forum
Naga Tuma
Member+
Posts: 5497
Joined: 24 Apr 2007, 00:27

Paying Homage to the Students of Democracy

Post by Naga Tuma » 05 May 2021, 18:55

I am unsure if anyone in this world could definitively say who the earliest students of democracy were in the long history of mankind. At the same time, I am unsure if anyone in this world would definitively say that there is a better ideology than democracy for mankind's journey of progress and march into the future and eternity.

After all, it has been said that democracy defined what it means to be human.

I do not think that reckoning with this definition was naturally a given. If it were, why wouldn't other species in the animal kingdom reflect a similar kind of reckoning, at least as far as we know today?

One could argue that matriarchy and patriarchy may have led the way for progress in the earliest days. Those types of leadership were naturally bound for challenges of relationships between matriarchies and patriarchies.

It is conceivable that these challenges were major factors for the birth of democracy in ancient times.

It appears to me that from the time of Pharaoh Tutankhamun in ancient Egypt to the philosophers of ancient Greece to the students of Renaissance who wrote the expression "we the people" to the French Revolution for "liberté, égalité, fraternité," the yearning for democracy has been a resilient flicker over the ages. I can imagine similar yearnings also existed over the ages in the eastern part of the world and South America, which I have yet to read and understand enough.

Even though I have yet to understand the exact meaning of the word Tutankhamun (ቱታን ከ ኣሙን,) in my book, it can figuratively mean one who believes in the mass (ቱታን ከ ኣመኑ.)

If any historical study exists to suggest the same, it would go to show that one who believes in the mass was printed long before "we the people," just like the hieroglyphic was written long before the Latin alphabet.

The ancient history that we have come to understand more deeply today based on archeological uncovering of the most decorated Pharaoh in history, massive Pyramids, and hieroglyphics could not have been flickers of their era but vibrant realities of the time.

In this era, one could ask what precipitated the decline of those vibrant realities of ancient Egypt. Based on my limited reading, one suggestion is that there was a political turmoil during an attempt to transition from a polytheistic society to a monotheistic one. Reading that suggestion as well as Ethiopia's ዘመነ መሳፍንት (the era of the Princes) just a few centuries ago could lead one to draw a parallel between the two historical realities.

Moses, who spearheaded the transition from polytheism to monotheism as Pharaoh Akhenaten, according to some studies, rose as a Messiah subsequent to the turmoil. Atse Tewodros of Ethiopia rose to end its ዘመነ መሳፍንት and reigned as ንጉሰ ነገስት, which roughly means King of Kings.

Though parallels can be drawn between the two realities, polytheism in ancient Egypt and ዘመነ መሳፍንት in Ethiopia just a few centuries ago, they didn't have parallel eventualities. Pharaoh Akhenaten fled ancient Egypt and became a Messiah and Atse Tewodros died a hero after becoming ንጉሰ ነገስት. I am less interested here in comparing and contrasting the challenging lives of the two leaders but more interested in the trajectories from the two eventualities.

It suffices to say here that the trajectories from the two eventualities have been qualitatively different, with one tilted more towards spirituality away from home, according to a scintillating study by Sigmund Freud, and the other more towards nation rebuilding at home.

The other parallel that can be drawn here is between "one who believes in the mass," at least speaking figuratively, which was written in ancient Egypt, and "we the people," which was written here in the U.S. just about two and a half centuries ago.

While it appears that vibrant ancient Egypt met its crossroads and took the fork toward its long decline, it also appears that about two and a half centuries of a vibrant democratic experiment here in the U.S., with all its faults and strengths, met its crossroads on January 6, 2021, and was able to save itself from a decline, at least for one more term in that experiment.

One can easily imagine that if it was unable to save itself, the U.S. in particular and the world at large would not be a stage for a debate of Democrats but a protracted battle of dictatorial Kings that could easily precipitate a decline for both and disfiguring of their vibrancies, similar to what happened in ancient Egypt.

When one is at crossroads, it matters less which fork one takes if one crosses a red light.

I have read or heard a long time ago that one of the qualities of a leader is the ability of imagination to break out of a pack when necessary. According to this observation, in this case, a leader should have the foresight to point to a red light, which is defending democracy instead of political party forks.

Not crossing a red light in democracy is the minimum thing that all participants in a democratic debate could and should agree on. Democracy is a uniter of all citizens of a country. It is a uniter of humanity. It has been a mother of geniuses that reckoned with it a long time ago as well as those who studied it deeply and accepted it.

I do not think that reckoning with it or accepting it comes easily among those driven by ego and ignorance. I imagine many philosophers in ancient times have tried to drive this message home. More than two millennia ago, Diogenes may have carried a lamp during the day, claiming to be looking for a man. In 2021, Scott Jennings, a clever Republica Strategist, appeared on national TV, a national and international lamp, to express that he had been looking for an ideas person in Trump's Republican Party and couldn't find one. Herein lies another parallel to draw, between the two thinkers.

Therein also lies a solid opportunity for those who wished to irrationally cross the red line against democracy to have the debate among themselves for democracy, which others have had for ages. That debate is also most likely to enlighten its participants about the distinction between rights in public spheres and privileges of invitations to private homes and institutions. That enlightenment is also likely to make it clear that the leverage to one's rights in a public sphere is a responsibility to pay taxes transparently whereas giving privileges is the extender's prerogative.

As a flicker here and there over the ages and as it continues to flicker for its new debaters, democracy has shown and is likely to continue to show itself to be a resilient commodity that, with all due respect to the adults in the room, no filth on this planet can easily undermine for a long period of time. The students of democracy have evaluated and valuated it over the ages, in the 21st century, and into eternity.

One can only pay homage to those students of democracy.