The Ride Talk On "Article 39"

Today, I had one of those classic "Ethiopian ride conversations" that start normally and end with me questioning our entire civic literacy as a country.

So I got into a ride right after my Gender class still in my FEMININE RAGE, DON'T TEST ME MOOD, and the driver asked what I study.
I said "Law."
He said, "Ahh, that explains it."

Explain what, sir?

Apparently, according to him, female law students "don't smile," "act too serious," and even "start citing articles in romantic conversations." (I'm still trying to imagine who confessed love with some Article as a response.)

Anyway, he kept going with stereotypes about female law students, which I ignored because honestly, I don't have enough time on earth to address all of them.

Then he suddenly shifted into constitutional commentary.
"Why won't the Constitution change?" he asked.
I said, "Why should it?"
He proudly announced that it has "problematic parts" and of course, I knew what was coming.

ARTICLE 39!

Because somehow this one article lives rent-free in everyone's head.

So I asked, "Have you ever read Article 39? Or the Constitution at all?"
His answer, "No, but I heard people talking about it. I am not interested in reading the Constitution." And yet he said he was interested in Politics.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, sums up our political culture.

We debate texts we haven't read!
We analyze an article we've never glanced at!
We talk politics without checking basic facts!

I politely told him, "Read the Constitution first. At least know how many sub-articles Article 39 has, and why it exists. Then we can have a real conversation."

He insisted that regions are fighting because of Article 39.
I asked for evidence.
He said he didn't need any.

At that point I just silently prayed for our civic education.

I also explained something that people often overlook. If we treated each other in a genuinely brotherly, respectful manner, Article 39 would be almost irrelevant. Because ELIMINATING A RIGHT DOESN'T ELIMINATE THE DEMAND BEHIND IT! It only makes the conflict more VIOLENT. Just like eliminating divorce doesn't save a marriage, it just traps people in something that ends badly anyway.

Finally, I reached my destination, and the fare he told me was completely wrong.
I refused to pay the inflated amount, and he complained, "What's up with you law students?"

Translation: "Why won't you let me overcharge you?"

That moment said it all. Here we were arguing about Article 39 while can't even follow the simplest human rule: DON'T TAKE WHAT ISN'T YOURS!