Part I
The Medemer philosophy and Jacques Derrida’s concept of deconstruction both unravel the illusion of fixed meanings, revealing that unity emerges not from rigid structures, but from the fluid, ever-evolving interplay of differences. As deconstruction challenges the boundaries of language and truth, Medemer teaches us that true understanding lies in embracing the complexity and interdependence of all things.
The association between the theories of Jacques Derrida, a French philosopher renowned for developing the concept of deconstruction, and the Medemer philosophy, a contemporary political and ideological framework promoted by Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed (PhD), presents an intriguing intersection of post-structuralist thought and a philosophy rooted in national unity and social cohesion.
While Derrida’s work primarily focuses on language, meaning, and the ways in which structures of power and knowledge shape our understanding of the world, Medemer is concerned with transcending divisions within Ethiopian society to promote cooperation, collective responsibility, and national progress. At first glance, these two frameworks may seem worlds apart, but upon closer examination, there are notable points of intersection, particularly in their shared engagement with identity, difference, and transformation.
Jacques Derrida’s Thought – Différance
Jacques Derrida’s philosophy is most famous for its critique of traditional metaphysical concepts, particularly in the realm of language and meaning. Central to Derrida’s thought is the idea of difference, a term he coined to describe the process through which meaning is always deferred and never fully present. According to Derrida, language is inherently unstable because meaning is not contained within words themselves but arises from their relations to other words. This idea challenges the traditional assumption that words or concepts have fixed, stable meanings, suggesting instead that meaning is always in flux, shaped by context, and dependent on the interplay of differences.
Deconstruction, as a critical method, involves exposing these instabilities and contradictions within texts, revealing how they undermine their own assumed certainties. Derrida’s philosophy questions the ways in which language and power are intertwined, showing how structures of knowledge and authority are built on unspoken assumptions and hierarchies.
Medemer is a political and philosophical vision aimed at unifying Ethiopia’s diverse peoples, transcending historical divisions, and fostering a cooperative approach to national development. The core of Medemer is a call for integration, mutual respect, and collective action, where individual and collective aspirations are seen as interdependent and where Ethiopia’s various ethnic and political groups come together for the common good.
Medemer is not just a political ideology but also a cultural philosophy that draws on Ethiopia’s long history of resistance to external forces and its rich cultural heritage. It stresses the importance of collaboration and synergy, where the strength of the nation comes from overcoming fragmentation and embracing unity.
At the heart of both Derrida’s philosophy and Medemer is the concept of difference. Derrida’s deconstruction emphasizes that meaning is always shaped by difference – meaning exists only in relation to what it is not. He argues that understanding any concept requires understanding what it is not, and thus, meaning is always contingent and relational. This view directly challenges essentialist notions of identity, truth, and meaning, suggesting instead that identities and meanings are formed through complex, ever-evolving processes of differentiation.
In the context of Medemer, the idea of difference is similarly acknowledged, particularly in relation to Ethiopia’s ethnic and political diversity. The Ethiopian state is made up of numerous ethnic groups, each with its own history, language, and cultural identity. Medemer recognizes these differences but advocates for transcending them through cooperation, integration, and shared national goals. In this sense, Medemer does not erase difference but seeks to transform it into a source of collective strength, much like Derrida’s notion that meaning is shaped by difference, but it is not confined to it. Both Derrida’s and Medemer’s frameworks thus highlight the importance of difference while simultaneously seeking to overcome the limitations and divisiveness it can create.
Derrida’s critique of binary oppositions, such as presence/absence, good/evil, and self/other, also resonates with Medemer’s approach to ethnic and political divisions. Derrida argues that Western thought has traditionally relied on such oppositions to structure knowledge and society, but these binary divisions often result in exclusion, marginalization, and domination. For example, the opposition of self/other has historically been used to justify colonialism, imperialism, and racial inequality, as the ‘other’ is often seen as inferior or lesser. Derrida’s deconstruction aims to show that these oppositions are not natural or essential but are products of specific historical and cultural contexts.
Similarly, Medemer seeks to overcome the rigid divisions between Ethiopia’s various ethnic and political groups, challenging the notion that the differences between them are unbridgeable or essential. Medemer promotes the idea that Ethiopians, despite their differences, are united in their shared identity as citizens of the same nation, and that their collective future lies in transcending these divisions. Both Derrida’s deconstruction and Medemer’s vision of unity advocate for breaking down entrenched binaries and opening up possibilities for more fluid and inclusive identities and relationships.
Another significant point of connection between Derrida’s thought and Medemer is their shared commitment to transformation. Derrida’s philosophy is deeply concerned with the potential for transformation within language, knowledge, and social structures. He argues that deconstruction is not just a method of critique but also a means of opening up new possibilities for thought, language, and political action.
Deconstruction, in Derrida’s view, reveals the contradictions within existing structures and creates space for new, more inclusive ways of thinking and being. Medemer, too, is a philosophy of transformation. It calls for a radical shift in how Ethiopians relate to one another, moving beyond the divisive forces of ethnicity and political factionalism to embrace a more cooperative and integrated national identity. Prime Minister Abiy’s vision of Medemer is a call for Ethiopians to reshape their collective future by drawing on the strength of their diversity, rather than allowing it to be a source of conflict.
Furthermore, Derrida’s exploration of the relationship between language, power, and ideology offers an intriguing lens through which to view Medemer’s emphasis on national unity. Derrida argues that language is not a neutral medium but is deeply embedded in power relations, serving to reinforce certain ideologies and social structures. In the case of Medemer, language plays a crucial role in the way Ethiopians conceive of themselves as a nation.
The very idea of unity within a country as diverse as Ethiopia depends on the way in which language is used to frame the relationship between its various peoples. Medemer promotes a discourse that fosters inclusivity, collaboration, and collective responsibility, which, in a way, mirrors Derrida’s belief in the possibility of language to effect social change when it is deconstructed from traditional power structures. While Derrida focuses on the deconstruction of hegemonic language and ideologies, Medemer seeks to construct a new, more inclusive narrative for Ethiopia, one that unites rather than divides.
At the same time, the relationship between Derrida’s work and Medemer also highlights certain philosophical tensions. Derrida’s thought is often seen as skeptical of the idea of total unity or a final, harmonious resolution to societal conflicts. He emphasizes the necessity of recognizing the plurality of voices and identities, and the impossibility of fully reconciling all differences. His critique of traditional metaphysical concepts and his insistence on the irresolvable nature of contradictions would likely question the idea of achieving an idealized unity in a diverse society such as Ethiopia.
Medemer, in contrast, is an optimistic vision of integration and cooperation, which assumes that such unity, is not only possible but necessary for the nation’s progress. In this sense, Medemer’s emphasis on collective action towards a common goal might be seen as somewhat at odds with Derrida’s more skeptical stance on the possibility of achieving a perfect unity.
In conclusion, the association between Jacques Derrida’s theories and the Medemer philosophy offers an intellectually rich space for exploring issues of difference, power, identity, and transformation. While Derrida’s deconstruction focuses on the instability of meaning, language, and identity, Medemer seeks to transcend the divisions within Ethiopian society by promoting national unity, collective responsibility, and mutual respect.
Both frameworks challenge entrenched power structures, whether in the form of patriarchal or ethnic divisions, and both emphasize the importance of transformation, albeit in different ways. Derrida’s philosophy suggests that true transformation comes from recognizing the complexities and contradictions within existing systems, while Medemer seeks to create a new, more inclusive national identity by overcoming historical divisions. Together, these two approaches provide complementary insights into the potential for societal change, whether in the realm of language and culture or in the political unity of a nation.
Diriba Geleti (PhD) is Deputy Director General, Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research
BY DIRIBA GELETI (PhD)
THE ETHIOPIAN HERALD SATURDAY 8 FEBRUARY 2025
