Daniel Ki(s)(b)ret: The Rasputin of Ethiopia?
By Essayias Lesanu
As I unsuspectingly browsed my Facebook, I was taken aback by a disheartening sight. There, glaring back at me, was Daniel Kibret’s page, awash with venomous barbs and scorn. The deep-rooted aspirations of the Amhara community were not only being trivialized but were subjected to blatant ridicule.
Every word from Daniel seemed to drip with condescension, each phrase an attempt to belittle and dismiss a profound and earnest movement. The audacity with which he labeled them, using incendiary and derogatory terms, was a stark reminder of the lengths some might go to silence voices crying out for justice.
The emotional sting of such contemptuous disregard was palpable, making it all too clear the challenges faced by those brave enough to stand up for their rights.
History, as it has often been noted, has an uncanny ability to repeat itself. One consistent narrative seen across the ages is the rise of individuals, courtiers, advisers, and confidants, who approach power not with the intent of serving the populace, but with a focus on personal gain and ambition. Their unchecked proximity to leaders often amplifies the worst autocratic tendencies, leading nations down paths of oppression and strife.
In today’s Ethiopian political arena, the figure of Daniel Kibert stands out as emblematic of this recurring motif. Once perceived as a beacon for constructive dialogue, Daniel’s transformation, or perhaps revelation, as a staunch advocate for Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, has raised eyebrows. His effusive praises, like equating his meeting with Abiy to a divine encounter, suggest a dangerous blend of fanaticism and opportunism. Such declarations can cloud objectivity, which is vital when shaping national policies and strategies.
Further aggravating the concerns of many is Daniel’s vocal support for the regime’s military endeavors and his palpable dismissal of the Ethiopian people’s distress. As millions grapple with the harrowing realities of war and famine, Daniel’s evident detachment from their plight, combined with his revelries in the corridors of power, paints a grim picture of an adviser more interested in personal elevation than national welfare.
Historical and contemporary political landscapes are studded with figures who rise from institutions of moral and ethical grounding only to depart radically from their origins. Daniel Kibert’s journey, from the sanctity of the nurturing grounds of Ethiopian Orthodox Church deacons and priests to the corridors of political power, is intriguing and disheartening.
Daniel Kibert’s roots in the church conferred upon him an implicit duty to uphold and advocate for the tenets of the Ethiopian Orthodox Church and, by extension, the moral and spiritual welfare of its flock. However, his subsequent actions, particularly his palpable divergence from the church’s principles, evoke the Shakespearean tale of Brutus’s betrayal. Just as Brutus, a trusted confidant, turned on Julius Caesar for political expediency, Daniel, nurtured by the church, seemingly turned his back on its doctrines and the people it serves. His actions seem less motivated by his youth’s spiritual or ethical teachings and more by personal gain and ambition.
Indeed, Daniel’s detachment from the suffering of the Ethiopian people, coupled with his unwavering support for policies that appear to be at odds with the church’s teachings, positions him as a poignant symbol of those who prioritize personal enrichment over principled action. His transformation — or rather, deviation — brings to mind a poignant phrase: selling one’s soul for a momentary gain, or in this case, for the satiation of one’s stomach. Such a metamorphosis, from a potential spiritual guide to a political opportunist, is a cautionary tale of how the allure of power and personal gain can overshadow one’s foundational principles.
The pages of history are rife with such figures, and their stories often serve as precedents and warnings. The case of Grigori Rasputin in Tsarist Russia is a potent example. Rasputin began as a self-proclaimed holy man but rapidly ingrained himself into the fabric of the Russian political elite. His growing influence over Tsar Nicholas II and the royal family was seen by many as detrimental, leading to questionable policies and decisions. Like Daniel, Rasputin too had his critics who were appalled by his overt manipulation of the leader for personal agendas. The outcomes were catastrophic: Rasputin’s machinations, along with other socio-political factors, ushered in the Russian Revolution and sealed the fate of the Romanov dynasty.
Moreover, in medieval Europe, the King’s court was often a theater of intrigue, where courtiers and advisers vied for the monarch’s ear. Many of these individuals wielded power not for the betterment of the realm but to further their standings, leading to periods of instability and upheaval.
But why do such figures emerge, and why do leaders allow them such close proximity? The answers lie in the complexities of human nature. Leaders, regardless of their stature, often seek affirmation, and figures like Daniel and Rasputin provide that in abundance. They offer unwavering loyalty, often at the expense of truth, reason, and the greater good.
In wrapping up, the lessons from history are clear. As societies and their political landscapes continue to evolve, the need for vigilant oversight becomes paramount. A robust system of checks and balances, coupled with an informed and active populace, can act as a bulwark against the rise of opportunistic advisers. After all, a leader’s counsel should be rooted in wisdom, objectivity, and a deep-seated commitment to societal welfare, not personal aggrandizement. It’s crucial to remain vigilant and discerning, recognizing that one’s origins don’t always dictate their path, especially when personal gain beckons with a siren’s call.
(The author of this article can be contacted via email at Essulesanu@gmail.com)
Souce: Essayias Lesanu facebook account
