A Review Of The Prime Minister’s Intervention On The Role Of Intellectuals

Introduction

Prime Minister Abiy has initiated a vital discussion on the role of intellectuals, one that should not end with his intervention. This long overdue conversation should be welcomed by intellectuals before anyone. The Prime Minister should be applauded for taking the time to engage with academics at the Addis Ababa University and for triggering important lines of inquiry. He made important remarks concerning the definition of intellectuals, their roles in history and society, and the challenges they face. He also provided several recommendations to enhance their roles as Ethiopia’s thought leaders. He cited a wide variety of historical examples—both major figures and processes–to substantiate his reflections.

I would like to see his interventions—and I hope he would agree with me—as initiating a conversation around all of these points, not as an end in themselves. I would like to take the lead in engaging with some of his remarks by way of triggering more discussions. While I appreciate his overall presentation, I will raise some critical questions strictly based on his speech. The goal is not to dismiss the points made, but rather to broaden the inquiry, explore the themes more deeply, and suggest alternative perspectives. I may come back another time with my own reflections on the role of intellectuals within the broader Ethiopian context. I also urge others to join this deliberation—both by engaging with the presentation at the AAU and by formulating new theses on the topic. I believe such an engagement is necessitated by the responsibilities of scholarship and the civic duty to contribute to addressing the myriad challenges our country faces.

1. On the Relationship Between Ideas and Institutions:The presentation assumes a linear relationship between ideas and institutions, arguing that ideas spark movements which in turn create institutions, and it offers historical examples to support this. I find this intellectually stimulating. However, I would propose that this relationship is not always so straightforward. Movements can also help generate ideas (for example, capitalist movements giving rise to capitalism-friendly philosophies), and institutions can foster the development of new ideas (for instance, whether regimes are authoritarian or democratic, and even the specific types of authoritarianism, determine the course and possibility of idea generation). Understanding this more complex, reciprocal dynamic is especially critical for state leaders who also advocate for an enhanced public role for intellectuals. Among other things, it helps shift the focus from a disembodied exhortation of intellectuals to the examination of institutional conditions that encourage knowledge production and dissemination.
2. On the Drivers of Historical Change:The drivers of historical change are not limited to ideas and institutions as the presentation seems to portray. Factors such as economic, demographic, geographic and other transformations, as well as international conditions, also play a significant role. They interact with ideas and institutional variables to produce intricate patterns of historical change. The agricultural revolution in Europe which the Prime Minister mentions, for instance, was not solely a product of new ideas, but rather a result of a confluence of various forces, including increased livestock production, a growing urban population, and the privatization of land tenure. Incidentally, some scholars argue that economic shifts often precede and shape new ideas, although the leading role of ideas is also undeniable in certain contexts. A holistic framework of analysis is again important, and the exhortation of intellectuals, while commendable, should be situated within this broader context to formulate realistic expectations. Such a framework apportions fair share of responsibilities among several class of actors and forces.
3. On Leadership “Currencies”:The Prime Minister’s argument that the problem with leadership is not its scarcity but the misplacement of its “currencies” is an interesting one. Nonetheless, the sharp distinction he draws between different types of leaders and the urge that each leader should stick to their “own” specific “currency” could be accused of being a logical and historical simplification. Throughout history, many philosophers have been moral leaders, while others have served state leaders. Similarly, some religious leaders have also been prominent intellectuals. A critical contribution on this topic for intellectuals going forward should be to guard against erecting a watertight barrier between apparently different fields of engagement, but rather to unpack the circumstances under which inter- and cross-domain interactions could result in negative or positive consequences. From this angle, while I share the PM’s concern of specific instances of misalignment and confusion of roles, that concern should be analyzed in relation with the overall need for cross-fertilization of ideas and interchange of roles.
4. On Applying the Theory of “Currencies”:An interesting tension arises when we apply the Prime Minister’s theory of leadership “currencies” to his own presentation. His theory posits that a state leader’s currency is “legitimate authority.” This prompts a deeper analysis of which currency is being utilized when a state leader engages in defining the proper role and conduct for intellectuals. At a still more general level, in such a context, when does the appropriate use of a currency end and its misuse begin?
5. On Individual versus Structural Challenges:It could be argued that the lecture’s primary focus is on a descriptive and character-based approach of the role of intellectuals and the challenges they face. For instance, nearly all of the factors presented as major challenges for intellectuals are individualistic and psychological (ስሜታዊነት, ጀመኝነት, ቀኖናዊነት, ትዕቢት, ማንአህሎኝነት) in nature. This approach provides a useful advice in self-development, but a more insightful contribution would also explore the complex relationship between the generation of ideas and the structural forces that influence it. This avoids abstracting knowledge production from its broader context. With a more inclusive and robust framework, one may also propose less vague, more realistic and more incisive recommendations for Ethiopian intellectuals. From this angle, the Prime Minister’s ultimate advice for intellectuals—“the most important thing is good-faith and good conscience (‘መልካምነት እና በጎ ህሊና’)”—is definitely well-taken, but more insight could be drawn from suggestions that speak directly to the complex web of situations that shape the lives and thoughts of Ethiopian intellectuals.
6. On the Typology of Ethiopian Intellectuals:The typology of Ethiopian intellectuals presented is again thought-provoking but could be made more systematic. It is unclear what criteria this typology is based on or why this particular methodology was chosen. Some categories seem to have been based on types of vision (“ተስፈኞቹ”, “ህልመኞቹ”), others on places of abode (“ስደተኞቹ”) or ideational notions (“ወግ-አጥባቂዎቹ”) and still others on historical chronology (pre-modern, modern, revolutionary). Furthermore, the categories logically overlap, and many scholars could easily fall into more than one of the proposed categories. A more systematic and consistent categorization would help to introduce greater insight about the nature of Ethiopian scholarship.
7. On Objectivity and Political Engagement:The presentation claims that intellectuals should remain content with the objective and unbiased use of their specific currency—ideas. This perspective was traditionally accepted widely in the (especially Eurocentric) academic community. More recent interventions, however, accuse it of overlooking the historically undeniable and often intractable link between major political milestones in history, such as revolutions and decolonization, and the efforts of intellectuals who were also leaders of political movements.
8. On the Positivist Paradigm:This leads to a broader critique of the objectivist paradigmatic understanding, which appears confined to a positivist approach that only recognizes objective, value-free knowledge as legitimate. Ideology-driven or value-laden knowledge, increasingly accepted as an inescapable aspect of intellectual work, need not be dismissed outright. The research industry currently emphasizes the importance of acknowledging positionality, exercising constant self-reflexivity, while striving to maintain scholarly credibility. To contribute something original to this widely-known debate in the epistemological literature, one should embrace and build on these complexities, and dissect the practical dilemma that emerges from applying them to the brutal Ethiopian context of ethnic division and political fragmentation, as we aspire to maintain our credibility as intellectuals at the same time.
9. On Inquiry and Response:Towards the beginning of his talk, the Prime Minister stresses that being an intellectual is primarily about inquiry. In doing this, he points to an essential aspect of an intellectual enterprise and he has cited appropriate historical examples to substantiate this. However, intellectual contribution usually does not stop there; it also involves employing systematic methodologies in search of an answer to the initiated questions.
10. On Reconciling Potential Tensions:One would like to see how the Prime Minister reconciles several potential tensions that could arise from his otherwise useful contributions about what intellectuals are and what their role should be. I would like to mention eight instances in this regard:

10.1. The Limits of Currency: On the one hand, he rightly suggests that intellectuals should move beyond their specific fields of expertise to provide broader guidance on various aspects of life. On the other hand, he insists they should only use their own “currency” and not interfere in the domains of others (such as those of institutional, religious, or tech leaders). I would have loved to see more engagement with these arguments and how they could be pursued simultaneously.

10.2. Defining the Intellectual’s Role: The Prime Minister—as already indicated—claims that being an intellectual is primarily about asking questions, not even providing answers. Yet, he also asserts that intellectuals should translate their ideas into action to address public concerns and bring about tangible changes and solutions. Still another definition one infers from his speech is that intellectuals need not work to alleviate public problems themselves, but should instead cultivate great political leaders (“empire-builders,” as he calls them) who can tackle those problems. A useful line of thinking would be to ask if it’s desirable to distinguish the essential from the non-essential aspects of being and becoming an intellectual and, if so, what they would look like both theoretically and practically.

10.3. Patriotism vs. Critical Inquiry: Relatedly, is the role of intellectuals to produce patriotic generations or just people who dare to ask critical questions? Prime Minister Abiy uses both in the same sentence, yet the two may not always align. Critical scholarly influence can go in different, at times unpredictable, directions, including to the point of questioning the foundations of widely acceptable political realities, including the nation-state system. Incidentally, how should we assess the role of intellectuals who support or encourage opposition to the state in pursuit of what they perceive as a just cause? Who stands to judge which political cause defines a true intellectual?

10.4. IQ vs. EQ: The presentation defines intellectualism principally as a function of IQ, or mental intelligence. But then the speaker exhorts intellectuals to practice emotional intelligence (avoiding arrogance, assuming Socratic humility etc.) so much so that EQ also appears to form an essential part of being an intellectual. This raises a crucial question: what is the relationship between disciplining the emotions and the intellect in forming an intellectual, and who can legitimately decide the type, quality, and limit of that discipline, especially regarding EQ?

10.5. The Value of Critique: It is rightly noted in the lecture that critical thinking is one crucial aspect of being an intellectual, only to be contradicted later with the statement that offering a critique or unmasking deficiency “is quite easy and anyone can do so.” What matters, the Prime Minister insists, is showing a way out. Both criticism of existing forms of knowledge and policy frameworks, on the one hand, and epistemic and policy recommendations, on the other, are important contributions and should be respected in their own terms. In this connection, it may be helpful to underscore the primacy of systematic and original critique in academic knowledge production and the significance of actionable policy recommendations in policy research.

10.6. Adventure vs. Composure: During the Q&A, taking risks and being adventurous as leaders is praised as worthwhile, and this may be true in certain contexts. But a little earlier in the presentation, past Ethiopian revolutionaries were criticized for being too emotional and impulsive, and part of today’s conundrums were associated with that lack of self-composure. Both assertions may be true in their own terms, but more should be said about their relationship and the acceptability or otherwise of certain emotional drives in academic, policy and political undertakings.

10.7. Avenues of Intellectual Contribution: During the Q&A, the PM disparaged those “self-styled” intellectuals who haven’t even been in the business of teaching and “haven’t published a single book”—indirectly dismissing them as charlatans. But earlier in the presentation, he included influential figures—both past and present—whose contributions are not defined by publication record. A general question that arises from this is: what are the different acceptable avenues of communication for intellectuals? Do any of those form an essential part of being an intellectual? And who has the authority to decide in any case?

10.8. Legacy of Past Ideas: The presentation concludes that the ideas generated by past intellectuals (the revolutionaries?) have been aborted. The question for the speaker is not whether this is true, but why. In the Q&A, a more nuanced claim is provided—that the legacies of the student movement (ESM) is still alive, and that it probably has both negative and positive consequences. This calls for a more coherent and sober analysis of the nature of the ESM and its continued legacies—both on political and intellectual levels.

Conclusion

The Prime Minister’s presentation at AAU on the role of intellectuals arrives at a critical juncture for both Africa and Ethiopia. The continent, and the Horn of Africa nation specifically, is being rocked by several political, economic, and socio-cultural crises. While many factors explain the onset, dynamics and magnitude of these challenges, an often-overlooked intellectual crisis is a fundamental component. This realization is growing among public intellectuals across Africa, yet it remains largely unexamined within Ethiopia. Academic and policy institutions should seize the momentum generated by the Prime Minister’s address to create platforms for a rigorous engagement with this issue, exploring how intellectuals can confront both long-standing and emerging challenges. It is their responsibility to elevate this discussion to the next level.

(Semir Yusuf, a senior researcher and academic, holds a PhD in Political Science from the University of Toronto. He has served in various positions at international think tanks and universities, and has lectured and published extensively. Semir is an alumnus of and former staff member at the AAU. He can be reached at: [email protected].)

Contributed Semir Yusuf (PhD)