Democracy is a highly contested concept among politicians and scholars. Many scholars and politicians present it as a prerequisite for good governance. In mean time, they also elucidate its merits and demerits in many ways. Democratisation as process does not exist in a vacuum. It has a distinct process that can only exist in an effort of channelling the mass opposition of social movements of pluralistic in nature into a constructive political entity. Government leaders and their supporting officials should admit that accommodating pluralism and building up a democratic society, who submits itself to democratic values, can be achieved with their political good wills. Governments are responsible to create an enabling political environment and also entertaining diversified and even conflicting public opinions wisely. However, opposition parties and the masses should not overthrow the burdens of creating a democratic society into the shoulder of the government. They should also recognise that is a daydream to wait democracy and sound governance in a gold plate from such dictatorial government like PFDJ in Eritrea.

Relevant issues of democracy, good governance and pluralism in present Eritrea are not only many but also needs careful examination issues by issues. In this paper, the current discourses of Eritrean cultural capitals and democratisation are explored to highlight the public and other key stakeholders. These issues selected as a priority for my discussion merely as many politicians of the ruling party publicly aired absence of the culture of democracy and lack of the tradition of self-governances hinder the government from promoting democracy. Consequently, the following questions are investigated in this paper:

• Don’t we really have the culture of tolerance for promoting pluralism and democratic governance?
• Didn’t we really have any cultural heritage of compromise and tolerance in our past history?
• If the above questions assumed to end up with positive answers, why then the government using it as a scapegoat presently?
• Is it a must to have the same level of political maturity of the west to initiate the democratisation process in our country?
• What hinders us from practising locally sound democratic principles by enriching and adopting some of the suitable western democratic principles into our old aged and rich social capitals? This paper deals the issue with due consideration that "democracy is a culture". The analysis was conducted using an evaluation on the strength and weakness of the existing pro-government and opposition movements in the context of Eritrean culture and democracy.

One of the great achievements of human kind in these days is to have a clear understanding of the indispensable interaction of culture and democracy. Culture, as survival mechanism of a given society, is dynamic- changes with the pace of human development. Culture can not be reduced to only inherited patrimony from ascending generation but each generation enriches it and develops it. It is an acknowledged fact that there is no human group without a culture of some sort. There are no such things as a culture Island. All cultures are constantly being influenced by the internal social systems and by other cultures. These internal and external influences can be in form of a wilful action, competing harmoniously in dialogue and tolerance. Pluralism brings different cultures to national, societal, or regional dialogues permitting cultures to mutually establish unity in diversity.

For democracy and its principles to be sustainable three critical elements are needed. Primarily, public participation is a vital consideration of cultural dimension. Second, listening to the people and arousing their interest will create the sense of belongingness. Third, it is important to ensure sound institution settings for public participation and collective action. People must feel they own the process and are willing to make concessions. After winning a long war against Ethiopia, Eritrea was the considered hope of African democratisation. Unfortunately the Eritrean people couldn’t even enjoy the basic human rights including the daily bread.

The PFDJ is postponing the process of democratisation in the country, under the guise of cultural diversity and lack of tolerant culture. It even goes to the point of saying; oppression is justifiable for the sake of solidarity. And they try to abusively justify their sabotage based on the political history of the 1960s. This, however, leads to a question why our politicians give too much emphasis to the failure, if there were any, of party politics in the 1960s and ignore the self-governing culture of our ancestors.

Dwelling ones reason on the distorted interpretation of history to justify undemocratic acts amounts, more or less sanctioning despotism. Approaches of this kind do not do justice to history, and the Eritrean people need to be aware of the hidden agenda behind these historical distortions. The danger is real and should be avoided by both politicians and civic societies.

Culture, as a dynamic process, has many inter-dependent components. Those components are co-existed and co-evolved together. One can affirmatively argue that it is through time the Eritrean people will develop the culture of political maturity and tolerance. The Basic rights, nonetheless, under any circumstance cannot be compromised on the pretext of democracy. The detention of the G-15 without a proper charge signifies one example. One can validly argue that the government has the right to take majors in a state of war. However, nothing among any of the basic human rights principles validate the detention of any person, whether he has been accused of crimes against humanity or treason, without appearing in a court of law for a long time. This behaviour of the ruling party and its leader indicate the greatest and conspicuous obstacle to the peaceful transition of the country into democracy.

Eventually, the recent development in Eritrea signifies a shift to the creation of opposition parties and civil societies, which is one of the important elements of democratisation. This remarkable happening needs a careful analysis since it is something unprecedented in the independent Eritrea. Many observers remarked that this is a historic moment for Eritrea to have political parties with alternative policies. Nevertheless, it needs a careful channelling towards democratic culture.

First and foremost it is important to look into the realties of the so called ‘political parties or civic movements’. Are they democratically institutionalised? Are these parties’ multi-ethnic movements? Do they have the readiness to discus and resolve their difference with other parties democratically? Are the members of these opposition camps committed to take necessary measures to achieve what is in their political programs’?

Careful examination of their posted programs in various websites indicates that they have almost the same objective with exception of minor procedural differences. One will wonder why they are unable to solve and reconcile their differences, if any, and create a powerful opposition, which enable them to have major support from Eritrean people.

For some being an opposition means opposing anything that doesn’t fall under their auspices. For others it is based on personal or group vendetta of the past. For most it is either their political interest or group interest. The most important one, which is not outwardly stated in the political program of these movements, is their sectarian behaviour. Members of Some opposition parties are involving merely to address their narrow regional and ethnic reasons. Others are also in the opposition camp as a save heaven for their crimes.

Moreover, there are also some who opposes as their close relative imprisoned -be it for genuine and holly involvement in the national politics or convicted for crimes. It seems needless to mention, but some people are also using party membership as a mechanism of financial benefit. There are so many reasons for the genesis of current distrust about the opposition. These include lack of their commitment and political maturity, transparency, tolerance and accountability are few factors among many. It seems that the culture of sacrificing personal interest seems eroded from the opposition parties-especially in the higher hierarchy of the leadership. For instance, the following cases are hot topics about the current state of the opposition and future direction of the country.

Firstly, the splitting of Adhanom from the EDP and the silence of EDP to the accusations by its former senior member is open to public criticism on the innocence and transparencies of opposition parties. Some of the most outstanding questions are the following: Why does EDP keep secrete from their senior member? Why Adhanom failed to voice all the misdeeds of the EDP to the party members at the congress? Does not also Adhanom think that reconciling difference by discussing with his x-party and also his age-old friends a most civilised mechanism? This doesn’t only affect the reputation of the party among its members but also his reputation. Does not he think establishing another alternative party widens the gap within the opposition camp? Besides, this event also invigorates the possibility of hidden misunderstanding of opposition camps as a whole.

Secondly, the walking out of ENA’s General Secretary, Mr. Hiruy Tedla Bairu and the Head of the Foreign Office, Mr. Osman Abubaker, out of the historic Independence Day meeting in Khartoum was also another shocking example to illustrate how parties are intolerant to each other. The reason was not only silly but shame even to mention it. Nonetheless, for public information it was happened on the account of a cartoon that depicted the General Secretary's party, the Cooperative Party, as having only the General Secretary and his wife as members, in ELF-RC's official newsletter, in Democrasyawit Eritrea. Though this only shows the personality of such individuals, it also reflects the moral ground of those parties, which are chaired by such individuals. Let alone to promote political tolerance for the nation, they do not even sustain the coherence of their party members with diversity- the sustainability of such parties is fragile. It is not easy to contemplate what will happen to freedom of the press once those parties come to power. However, this does not also imply they can not learn and reform- there is time for internal reform but the sooner is the better.

Thirdly, the splitting within the ELF-RC, is also a bad example to the current struggle for promoting democracy. These developments occur at the historical juncture, when the opposition groups are expected to concentrate on the national issue. They are merely busy splitting and duplicating a replica of other opposition parties. This is the time that calls all the opposition movements to learn tolerance among each other. That is the way out to save the nation and look forward for peace and prosperity under the creation of sound political environment.

Opposition parties should realise our People are wishing to see "Unity in diversity "than the futile mumbo-jumbos statements made by the opposition parties. After all, are they opposing the government or opposing each other? In such environment one can imagine the difficulty of these movements to win the trust of their people. People are not sure how they can help these movements to bring them into truth and reconciliation. Every party seems to have something against the other. It raises the question if they are planning to win the challenge for democracy separately. Are they expecting people to trust them for the mere reason they are opposing the ruling party or because they are better than other oppositions and the PFDJ? Are they expecting people to base their support on what kind of program they have without any serious commitment and scarification?

This period is a litmus paper for the opposition. This is also the time the broad mass are "sieving the grain from the chaff". Our people are very sad to see the opposition busy criticizing each other. The Masses are wishing to see opposition parties which are the disciples of tolerance and compromise-not dictators and selfish. The Eritrean masses are in enormous doubt about their leadership skills to transform the nation into democratic transition, unless they are ready to make compromises without shifting from their basic political believes and affecting national interest.

If one also tries to make something out of the articles and comments on the Eritrean websites, it shows that most of the writers don’t have the tolerant culture. This does not mean that people should not write their guts feeling but they must ask themselves why they’re writing. Why the writers and commentators do not teach each other and forward constructive criticism than airing immature and unethical personality attacks? The strangest of such articles and comments demonstrates that most of the writers are also dumb and deaf to appreciate some of the good deeds of the current government or any other opposition. They always try to discredit the government even for its good qualities and performance. Let’s not forget the leading front was the one who won the independence struggle; let us not also forget the considerable achievement in infrastructure and social services and let us not forget the contribution on securing our sovereignty. Do not they know the vision of Eritrean people is peace, development and justice than entertaining the ideas of opposition, merely for the sake of opposition? If the leading front has to be blamed, it should be for its misdeeds. Is it not very sad to see this front changed into an evil and enemy of his people suddenly? The leading front should be blamed for this major historical mistake.

Opposition parties should attentively examine and learn why the current ruling government faces mistrust and opposition from the broad masses. Though there are many reasons, the underlying cause is the PFDJ has failed the people of Eritrea and his members by deferring from its promise enshrined in its political programme’. It is not far from remembering when the present despotic leader stated publicly that" as to his believe EPLF must dissolve itself if democracy to flourish in the country". He also stressed that the front "would commit a great historical and political suicide if insisted to continue as a party". However, it is the same leader and the same front that devoid the society from basic human rights. By the way, was he really making his statement from with in? No, he was airing this merely for public relation. Every opposition should learn one basic fact that if what is preached is not implemented then the consequence will be lack of public support and isolation.

In sum, the underlying failure of both the current leading front and the oppositions is lack of the culture of tolerance and respect for the opinion of others. Ideas should be entertained either to reach to a consensus, compromise or accommodate as far as the motive is for developing better Eritrea. Democracy should be framed to create unity by accommodating the socio-cultural and ethnic diversity. But how? Is there a way of creating synergy among culture, ethnicity and democracy?

There is no ‘one size fit all’ sort of democracy. Democracy could only be viable if it uses the cultural capital of the nation including local institutions. Historically, the Eritrean society has a wealth of cultural assets of democratic and self-governance through the Baitos and other institutions of the time. Regardless of the oppressions against women and minorities, local community of a given locality are either represented or fully participated in the law making process democratically. Most of these customary laws have been orally transferred from generation to generation. Our effort has to focus on the political and sociological history of the Eritrean society. But, how can we reconcile and challenge the idea of the incumbent government saying that democracy is a western concept?

The Eritrean society had its own values and democratic means of governance. Our duties should be to consider the rich experience of our past and synchronise it with the good facet from the western democracy. Let’s think globally and act locally. Let’s have a system that will suite us and challenge the PFDJ’s bad governance. The intellects, the elderly and the young have to be ready to revive and built democracy that accommodate our own culture and social systems. Above all for democracy to sustain and flourish it needs tolerant culture, let’s all work for it.

Fanuel Mesfin
21july2004
south Africa