Haile Selassie, Western Education and Political Revolution in Eth ...

Crane Brinton’s study in The Anatomy of Revolution identified some “tentative” uniformities in major world revolutions, including the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. These uniformities were: (a) the socie­ties were somewhat advancing compared with the past, (b) they had clearly identifiable class antagonisms, (c) the government of the status quo were inept and inefficient, (d) the ruling elites had lost confidence in themselves, (e) the government was experiencing financial failures, (f) the educated elites had deserted the system, and (g) there was inept use of force to contain the growing rebellion.²⁵ The author considers it important to point out here that all these variables were present in Ethiopia in 1974; the country was thus ripe for revolution.

This study involves an explanation of not only why, when, and how revolutions start, but also the role of educated elites in the revolutionary process. It also analyzes the relationship between education and political movements. A careful survey of the available literature that covers education and a country’s domestic political processes would therefore be useful.

By tradition, Western scholars have attempted to create a dichotomy between education and politics by advancing the view that the political system is a separate entity from the educational system and that, therefore, both practically and analytically, schools should be considered non-ideological and non-political. However, this view and its totally misleading premise have been challenged by a new generation of scholars, who have come to appreciate the close and intrinsic relationship that has always existed between education and political processes. A concerted move toward explaining the phenomenon started in the 1920s and went through the 1930s and beyond in studies of political education and training (Merriam and Pierce);²⁶ in examination of acquired personality, politics, and “national character” (Inkles and Levinson);²⁷ and in political behavior development and “socialization” (Hyman and Easton).²⁸

“Political socialization,” which is nothing but a euphemism for “political indoctrination,” has recently attracted a great deal of scholarly interest, especially in the political science discipline. Its analysis is rooted in communications theory (Lasswell):²⁹ (a) who, (b) learns what, (c) from whom, (d) under what circumstances, and (e) with what