A seemingly new beat appears to overwhelm us from the Revolutionary Democrats camp; following the financial meltdown in the developed economies, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi leads the assault on liberalism, which is echoed by others, including the state media, as much as the party organs. They all try to present the global financial crises as a vindication of the ideology promoted by their Revolutionary Democracy.
 

I am baffled, to say the least. Nevertheless, the latest rhetoric made it clear to me into which camp the heart of the ruling party lay - which claims to have a model of a "developmental state" - in the ideological divide.
 

The EPRDF is a political party that was brought up baptized by a Marxist-Leninist socio political ideology. Unprecedented developments following the end of the Cold War, as well as its ascendance to state power following the ousting of the Derg, had created an environment where denouncing liberalism was as thorny as overtly promoting its long held faith in leftist dogma. Attribute this to its confusing, if not contradictory, claims of being revolutionary democrats, while at the same time advocating a free-market economic policy environment and the creation of lily-white capitalism in Ethiopia. The party used to preach that it would be revolutionary democracy that could transform Ethiopian society towards capitalism; and not liberalism.
 

However, never was there a time that the ruling party gathered enough courage to stand up against western liberal ideology as it appears to be doing now. Indeed, this is yet more evidence that the EPRDF was compelled to espouse liberalism due to international circumstances; its declaration of faith remains true to the leftist ideological camp.
 

Ironically, the ruling party's recent rhetoric may have revealed where its heart lies; but it also blurs its intention as to the direction the EPRDF wants to take the nation.
 

Although various manifestos of the ruling party say EPRDF's revolutionary democratic views have evolved through the years to embrace ideas such as free-market economic policy framework and multiparty democracy, we see the same party promoting political views that make the role of the state in the economy indispensable, and that attack the private sector as an agent of "rent seeking." This is not to mention its bold claims that Ethiopia would face the risk of disintegration in its absence.
 

These are all factors that expose the reasons behind the ruling party's flirtation with liberal economic and political views: It is a tactical allegiance simply meant to secure loans and grants from western countries.

EPRDF's criticisms of liberalism have three categories. The prominent among them is liberalism's limitations to respond to questions of the rights of nations and nationalities in the same manner as revolutionary democracy does.
 

I find historical inconsistency in this argument. And I am still baffled as to how a political platform, such as revolutionary democracy, whose historical analysis of social contradictions is strongly based on class struggle, sufficiently responds to other conflicts as the ones derived from competing interests among nations and nationalities. Neither do I buy the argument that liberalism cannot address this social conflict, for collective rights (whether in the form of nations or otherwise) are not separate issues that are unable to be addressed in respect to individuals' fundamental rights.

Democratic liberalism is indeed an ideology that is faithful to the respect of the rights of the individual, including his or her collective rights, although not including the right of sessions from a defined political community. It does not compromise the right of individuals under the disguise of ensuring the rights of the collective, nor is it true the other way round.
 

Many communities in the United States and Europe, where liberalism is well entrenched, have the right to promote their peculiar identities expressed in the form of a shared language and culture, as well as the autonomy to decide on issues of local interests. Although these are values well observed there, these are not countries very enthusiastic about the ideals upheld in revolutionary democracy.

For instance, that Amharic is now incorporated in the list of working languages used by Washington D.C.'s municipal administration has little to do with the United States' desire to advocate the ideology of revolutionary democracy; far from it.
 

United States is a country of liberals where collective rights derived from individual rights are fully respected; thus, Ethiopians are only one of the many communities there which are not only encouraged but are also financially supported to promote their shared identities through the use of their ethnic languages and free observance of their respective religions. Even Canada, a country where the ideals of liberal democracy has an overwhelming presence, did not set such an example in allowing its citizens to determine, through a referendum, the secessionist question of Québec because it is a place for revolutionary democracy.

I would like to challenge the ruling party, which is not sincere about observing both individual and collective rights, that it has no moral ground to point its finger at liberal democratic ideology in its alleged inability to respond to issues of rights espoused by nations and nationalities.
 

The EPRDF also believes that there is no social base for a political party to promote the ideals of liberalism in Ethiopia. This could be partly true. Nevertheless, the connotation that Ethiopian society is not ready to embrace liberalism does not make any sense to me; a political party subscribes to a certain ideological view not simply because that view dominates the political landscape and may have a social base. If that were the case, no leftist party would have attempted to instil "the proletarian dictatorship" in an underdeveloped agrarian society such as ours, as the right-leaning groups would have tried to establish a capitalist system.

It is not possible to imagine the existence of a social base a century ago in countries where liberal democracy is widely practised today. In fact, many of them had begun the journey from a social environment not far from where we find ourselves today, but matured through the generations to create contemporary liberal societies.

If we were to take the existence of a sufficient social base as a precondition for the creation of liberal democracy, it would be impossible to practise free market economy, which is now widely promoted by the EPRDF itself, in the absence of a sizable middle class. If we all are espousing a market based economic regime, it is only because we see that as our ultimate goal and the direction in which we would like to see our country going. This does not mean that there is a sufficient social base either for liberal or revolutionary democracies.

Ironically, a statement issued by the EPRDF in the aftermath of its renewal process in 2004 claims that "if there ought to be a choice made to pick liberalism, it is only the EPRDF that has the capability to shoulder this responsibility." To me, there is no better evidence than this statement to expose the lack of appetite by the ruling party to embrace not only a market based economic policy, but also its unfaithfulness to the multi-party democratic political order.
 

The EPRDF is often repulsed by liberal democracy because it views it as a capitalist ideology that limits the state's intervention in anything, and promotes a laissez-faire economic system. There is half truth to this criticism; indeed, classical liberalism used to abhor the state's involvement in almost everything during its early years. Its ardent followers were of the view that citizens should protect themselves against the encroachment by the state.

This view did not get a long lease of life; beginning in the 20th Century, liberals began to see the validity of state intervention in citizens' affairs for collective good and social wellbeing. This is so provided that its involvement is limited by law and with the consent of the citizenry. The Great Depression of the 1930s in the United States, which led to massive unemployment, high inflation and the loss of social security, had justified the role of the state in solving the crises. The understanding that unfettered capitalism is a recipe for social unrest and inevitable collapse has laid the ground for the rebirth of liberalism as we know it today.
 

However, the creation of welfare states that try to ensure social securities of their societies pre-dates to 1880, as was the case in Germany. These countries had managed to withstand the social turmoil and the subsequent temptations for revolutions steered by philosophers and critics of the capitalist system, such as Karl Marx, that capitalism does encourage unfair distribution of wealth. Hence, the contemporary income structure modelled through the structure of a diamond - where the middle class is wide in the middle and the extremely poor and the fancy rich are represented on the opposite end. This is contrary to the earlier social structure modelled through a pyramid, where the poor are the bottom majority, with the size shrinking as it goes all the way up.
 

It is now hardly possible to find a country with liberal democracy that has failed to design some sort of social welfare regime; suffice the new identity of contemporary liberalism as "social liberalism." The kind of liberalism I see the EPRDF passionately criticizing is not the contemporary brand, but mainly focused on the classical form of the laissez-faire liberalism of the 20th Century.   
 

Following the global financial meltdown, the ruling party has launched its ideological onslaught against liberalism, and hopes that the subsequent economic downturn has vindicated its ideology of revolutionary democracy. But, there are the reasons why I would argue that the recent onslaught does hold no water.
 

There has never been a fault-proof socio-political system; it is premature conclusion to declare the demise of liberalism as an ideology and capitalism as a system. Neither were this year's crises the first for the western economies to confront with economic depressions of various sizes and shapes. There have always been soft and rough landings to the western economies immediately after the bubbles that their governments experience as often as our does with drought.

None of these countries were seen beginning the march away from their liberal democratic order. Neither are they questioning the core of an ideology that helped them overcome poverty and delivered their societies to prosperity. It is a system known and appreciated for its resilient nature.

Should there be criticism in stock of western ideologues, they should be blamed for their complacency, thus failure to tinker with the system so that it could survive the challenges of the day.

Whether or not western economies established on liberal ideological foundation will weather the current storm is a puzzle only time will solve. Nonetheless, when the global economy turns its tide - and I believe it soon will - we all will see how premature and wrong the conclusions by the EPRDF were. I would have preferred to see the ruling party have the good faith to emulate the good elements in liberalism than focus its energy in trying to pick the few and occasional weaknesses in the system, all in a bid to vindicate itself.