Mereja.Forum

[DefendTheTruth]

High Tech of the 21st century combined with a back-ward know-how of the 19th century led to devastating consequences for the instigators themselves.

It is because of this that many of those so called observers now come forward and attest to "the TPLF miscalculated".

You can only calculate correctly if you also know how to calculate.

Woyane claimed that it has controlled about 80% of the military hardware of the national army of the country. They added with their own words stating "we can reach to any point in the country and we will stike them at where they are" and everybody was unsettled by the claim for the obvious reason of safety of the innocent people of the country.

Now those in the field are coming forward and confirm that the claim was indeed correct and they do have controlled the major part of the military hardware of the nation, the problem, added those in the field, is that they (the culprits) don't know how to operate the modern armament they took control over and due to that the national army, the Airforce, was able to destroy the whole armament without they were deployed against the people, who spent its own meager resources to protect itself against any aggressions, by those who we thought are part of our own.

ሞት ከልቀረ ጥሩ ስም ይዞ መሞት ክብር ነው፣ ውየኔ 2 ሞት ነው የሞተው፣ ስመ ጥፍ ይዞ በመሞቱ።

[DefendTheTruth]

But the most important question should be why Woyane lacked the necessary know-how? Are Tigreans some how less intelligent than the rest in the country at the national level?

In my view it is on the contrary, Tigreans are very hard-working and very much also one of the most educated people in the country, I think no one can deny that.

The problem is somewhere else and it should be something to draw a lesson from, most probably: why the current administration of PM Abiy Ahmed managed to organize a better equipped national army in something like over 2 years while the TPLF dominated administration failed to do the same in over 28 or so years of power?

This question is important to answer and helps to understand to navigate many other issues we are facing today in the country.

In my view this is related to the organization the two administrations have operated in and there is one vital difference between the two: one is based on an identity politics and the other is openly calling for accommodation and openness based politics and thereby achieving a unified nation, here comes the idea of Medemer as i understand it to mind. I could be wrong but it is the way I understand it.

While Medemer is about accommodations and inclusiveness the other is about exclusivity and advancing of kinship and loyalty while the other is about merits based accomplishments.

Kinsmanship doesn't foster the advancement of knowledge by its very nature, because it is against openness, it is based on core-periphery relationship based organisational structure. Organization is a key in doing business even at a smaller level like relatively small businesses.

Accomodation and inclusiveness can't afford to just advance the interest of just selected sections of the stakeholders, by its very nature. If Medemer is truly adhering itself to this philosophy could be debated but one can't deny that identity politics is antithesis to advancement of knowledge and inclusiveness, it (identity politics) is all about loyalty and kinship at its core.

There must be a reason why the United States of America is the global hub of modern knowledge and at the same time also one of the most open society in the world, while those nations based on closedness philosophy and kinship, even in the standards of the "western World" are not so advanced like their counterpart on the other side of the Atlantic.

In my view it is not a mere coincidence that USA is the most technologically advanced nation on the planet and also the most open society, which is known for its reputation of American Dream in the rest of the world. Knowledge brings advancement in technology and it doesn't know a boundary.


Kinship based organisation, on the other hand, by its very nature, can't advance knowledge rather it impedes while trying to look for secrecy and loyalist elements in the society.

Someone can prove me wrong but I say here, once again, draw a lesson.