Kapuscinski’s “Emperor” tells a story of Ethiopia under the ruler Haile Selassie — his rise to power, the strife that existed during his reign, and ultimately, his removal from the throne. Despite the embellished details present in “The Emperor,” Kapuscinski tells a story of the growing pains associated with the westernization of nations in the Global South. Furthermore, he shows how pressures from outside forces (in this case Europe) can lead to indirect “authoritarianism,” by making governments value its superficial image over the way its citizens are treated.
However, this “authoritarianism” can be used to serve desirable ends that existed prior to westernization, such as the basal need to control and maintain a “natural order. ” Throughout the book, Kapuscinski demonstrates this by presenting the constant struggle between “development” and “reform” in Ethiopia, exhibiting the self-preserving nature of Haile Selassie, and later on, the reactions that the Ethiopian government and rebels have to mass starvation in Ethiopia.
Though this story documents the case of Ethiopia specifically, it is a “story” that could be tailored to authoritarian regimes around the world that share an entrenched principle of self-preservation, and maintenance of an image that is palatable for the West. “So the dignitaries started their denunciations in monosyllables, hints, whispers… dropping hints in conversational lulls—that Germame took bribes and used them to build schools… They bore a report that Germame had gone too far: he had begun turning uncultivated acreage over to landless peasants, he was seizing private property by force.
Germame had turned out to be a communist. Oh, what a grave matter my good sir!… Germame failed to kiss the monarch’s hand. Unfortunately… ” (66-67) Germame is a fleeting figure in the book-his rise is a result of the education and position “given” to him by Selassie. But as he gains power, he uses it for purposes that are not aligned with the interests of Selassie’s administration. As a result, he is denounced by the administration and forced to face the man that “created him. ” Kapuscinski uses the “dignitaries” opinions of Germame to give the reader a better understanding of their position on “reform. Their “denunciations” of Germame stem from actions that would be perceived as benevolent to the Ethiopian population, so it becomes unclear why they are unguarded in their criticisms of him. Furthermore, it’s unclear why they describe his “communist” nature to be a “grave matter. ” The word “grave” insinuates that his actions have the potential to end, to kill.
But within Germame’s interaction with Selassie, we gain insight as to why his actions are “grave. ” (XX) explains that Germame “failed to kiss the monarch’s hand. Kissing someone’s hand is a symbol of subservience, of loyalty. Despite the fact that Germame was educated at Selassie’s volition, and put into power at Selassie’s will, Germame holds no allegiance to Selassie, and will not express loyalty by kissing his hand. In this interaction, we see that benevolence does not equate loyalty. Given Germame’s subsequent rebellion against Selassie’s regime, this lack of loyalty is perhaps why Selassie’s administration sees Germame’s benevolence as grave. An uneducated and powerless Germame would have been incapable of rebelling against the state.
However, he was enabled by Selassie’s “benevolence,” and used his power in attempting to overthrow him. This interaction serves particular relevance in examining why “reform” is not a desirable goal for Selassie’s court, and why benevolence to the newly empowered is seen as dangerous—because it doesn’t ensure loyalty. “Had it not been for our grumbling students, who… had started to raise their heads more and more… How, they said, can one talk of development in the midst of utter poverty? What sort of development is it when the whole nation is being crushed by isery, whole provinces are starving, few can afford a pair of shoes, only a handful of subjects can read and write, anyone who falls seriously ill dies because there are neither hospitals nor physicians… Finally the time came where they brought out their impudent whim of reforming. Development, they said, is impossible without reform.
One should give the peasants land, and free the country from dependence on foreigners… I ask, how do you reform, how do you reform without everything falling apart? How do you move something without everything falling apart? How do you move something without bringing it all tumbling down? (87-88) This statement from P. M. documents the conflict between the university students of Ethiopia, and their leader. Their “grumbling” exhibits frustration with the “development” that is occurring in Ethiopia, and how it only creates a superficial image of success and prosperity in Ethiopia. Within the country, people are still dying needlessly, living in poverty without basic necessities like shoes, and unable to read and write. In response, the interviewee (XX) offers critiques of the student-activists, and asks rhetorical questions to justify their form of development.
In these questions, the interviewee creates an analogy, comparing economic development to a construction, a development in itself—a structure. He compares reform to a push, a movement, one that disturbs this construction. Foremost, he articulates a fear that reform may lead to the destruction of this structure. Throughout this rampant question-asking, the interviewee never clearly states what this construction is. Prior to this statement, the object that has been portrayed as a structure has not been the nation, but rather the imperial court that rules it.
These questions demonstrate the vested interest of the interviewee. It seems that the interviewee does not see the welfare of the Ethiopian people as his preeminent interest, but rather the maintenance of the status quo, the further development and entrenchment of the system that currently exists. The questions that the students ask further this notion: “What sort of development is it when the whole nation is being crushed by misery? ” Kapuscinski places this strategically to demonstrate the ends of the Selassie regime. While they tout development as something that is good, they never articulate who it is good for.
When asked to improve the lives of citizens via reform, they claim that it will cause everything to “tumble down. ” Based on the disinterest of P. M. when it comes to serving citizens, combined with the universal desire in the Selassie regime to “move up the ranks,” it seems that members of the Ethiopian government are only interested in developing, entrenching, and maintaining the system of government that serves their ends directly. This still doesn’t allow the reader to understand why “reform” and “development” must be opposed, but provides insight as to why the Ethiopian government treats development as a priority.
With this statement from P. M. , Kapuscinski places himself in a position to demonstrate why development and reform are not compatible, and who they are not compatible for. “How, then, is one to confront this threatening creature that man (insinuates fear) seems to be, that we all are? How to tame him and daunt him? How to know that beast, how to master it? There is only one way my friend: by weakening him. Yes, by depriving him of his vitality, because without it he will be incapable of wrong. And to weaken is exactly what fasting does. Such is our Amharic philosophy… Experience confirms it.
A man starved all his life will never rebel. Up north there was no rebellion. No one raised his voice or his hand there. But just let the subject start to eat his fill and then try to take the bowl away, and immediately he rises in rebellion… Yes, one should always beware of those who have a bit, because they are the worst, they are the greediest, it is they who push upward. ” (113) This quote allows Kapuscinski to confirm the reader’s suspicion that the Ethiopian government was solely interested in maintaining its existence, rather than serving the needs of the Ethiopian people.
Furthermore, it introduces the idea that maintaining the status quo is used for more nefarious ends than previously stated. This end being the permanent subjugation of the Ethiopian people to an underclass, where they are rendered unable to fight for themselves, due to a permanent fixation on survival and selfpreservation. Paradoxically, this is used to promote the selfpreservation of the Ethiopian government in the status quo. Earlier in the book there is open praise of Haile Selassie, resulting from the fact that he ended the tribal practices of slavery and lebasha: “Medicine men would give a secret herb to small boys, who… ould go into a house and point out the thief… The one who had been pointed out… had his hands and legs cut off”—tribal practices that stemmed from the Amharic traditions that the Ethiopian people followed (51). These practices were criticized and ended, due to the notion that they caused unnecessary death and despair. Based on this prior action, it seems that the Ethiopian government has only rejected Amharic tradition when it serves their ends, regardless of how destructive these traditions prove to be.
This statement is blatantly deceitful and hypocritical—when the aforementioned practices were ended, it was done due to a notion that their tribal culture stymied progress, and should be rejected if the nation truly had a desire to develop. It seems that in order to maintain power, the government has to co-opt the culture that they chastised prior, and commit to an action that is as openly destructive as the ones that it rejected prior. Furthermore, it demonstrates the true ends of “development. “Reform” is impossible because it empowers the citizenry, it gives them desires for freedoms and liberties that they could not comprehend prior, because of a fixation on survival. If “reform” is accomplished, the rise of the “beast” is imminent. This was exemplified in the case of Germane—he was not satisfied with his education and power, and felt the need to rebel against the state. Therefore, the only way to neutralize and “tame” the “beast” is not to give him rights, to “deprive him of his vitality. ” The use of the word “deprive” is provoking, because it insinuates that the right to “vitality” is a natural right.
With this interpretation, Kapuscinski portrays the deeds of the Ethiopian government as more nefarious, because they are stealing rights from the people. Ultimately, this exposes the true end of “development,” which is to subjugate and control. For those in Selassie’s court, they were subjugated by a system that implored them to rise and succeed by any means necessary. For peasants, it meant starvation and “deprivation. ” But in both cases, this system was justified by an “Amharic philosophy,” which existed prior to any development.
