Tsigenai [in Tigrigna]
Issue: 26-2001 (special issue) May 21, 2001
[Translated to English by Awate.com: June 3, 2001]

After Ibrhaim Afa, you are recognized (at least by the people) as one most experienced in military matters.  Your appointment as Defense Minister, shortly after Independence, seemed to confirm this recognition.  Suddenly, in 1995, you requested to be transferred [to another position.]  Some observers said this is because you wanted to take a break; others said that you couldn’t acclimate yourself to the new military administration.  Still others attributed this as the beginning of a conflict within the EPLF leadership.  What is your opinion?

During our armed struggle, in matters of military operations, and specifically with respect to the leadership, there was no device to enable one to say so-and-so is better than so-and-so.   Because we knew each other [well], there may have been means of comparison.  Because the appointment of commanders for a military operation was the responsibility of the Secretary General, he may have had measurement tools he used in the selection of commanders.   But those of us who were in the leadership, when we worked jointly on a military front, we never entertained even the thought of “so-and-so is the order-giver” and “so-and-so is the order-taker.”   We arrive at a consensus after conducting a discussion and we pass on the directive to our subordinates.  And, in its execution phase, we follow-through jointly.    In military operations, this kind of management is unheard of but in our experience, that was the norm.   So, there was no rank of first, second, third…etc based on our military capabilities.    Within the past three years of war with Woyane, there are things I know or observed from a distance; but because I wasn’t part of the military institution, I can’t talk about it.

As you stated, it is possible to speculate on the reasons for my leaving the Ministry of Defense.  I don’t have an answer to address all of them.  If there is one answer I can give (and even that will be posed in the form of a question): the speculation that I couldn’t acclimate myself to the modern military administration that was introduced in 1994-95 and why?  The answer to this question can be found in the military developments that surfaced after the implementation of the changes.

There are those (Eritreans and foreigners) who say that, at present, we haven’t made the transition from a revolutionary to governmental administration.  How much truth is there in this [statement]?  Have we made the transition from revolutionary to governmental administration?  You, as a member of the Executive Committee [of PFDJ] and Governor of the most populous region, do you think [operate] as a member of government or a member of a political front? 

Properly seen, the way we managed things during the Revolution, most of it, is incompatible with our current way of administration.   The way we governed relatively fewer people and smaller area cannot help us in the administration of many more people and the entire nation, specially one that is an internationally-recognized sovereign nation with diplomatic relations.   On the other hand, the work discipline, mutual trust and discussion we nurtured during the Revolution should never be abandoned.

One would not dare say during this transitional phase that the way the country or our government is being run is clear and consistent.   We do not use our institutions properly; we have not introduced/initiated budgetary process and, above all, neither the Legislative nor the Executive branches of the Front or the Government have scheduled and legal means of operations.   It is my estimation that this problem will persist until Constitutional Government establishes institutions and works based on the constitution.  And so, the statement that claims that we haven’t transitioned from a Revolutionary system to a Governmental system that meets the needs of our time is a true statement.    What is worse and paradoxical is that we are not using the good practices we developed during our Revolution.

As a person who is part of the Front and the Government, I work using both [identities.]  As a member of a political organization that is in a position of authority, I work with full knowledge and belief that the government is that of the political organization that I belong to.   So, the political organization in power and the government it established are two sides of the same currency.  Whether I like it or not, this is the truth; and this is what I base my work on.

And so, how do you see the intermingling of the work of the government and the political organization?

Bad! Let alone these two big institutions, there is even [there should be] separation of duties between two smaller institutions.   Although the government is that of the political organization, the work [of the government], its policies and mandates, and the individuals and institutions that execute its policies, should be done without any interference by the political organization.   Same applies to the Front.  There should be a mechanism whereby the Front exercises its right to control the work of the Government.  And this should be done not only on days when the Government is willing but also in a scheduled and transparent way.

In our seven-year experience (since the third Congress of the Front), some members of the Front were assigned duties in the Government exclusively and others in that of the Front, exclusively.    Perhaps most of the members and the ablest members are working in the Government.  Although an individual is assigned to the government, he is fulfilling the directive given to him by the Front.   This does not mean that a member of the Government has let the administration of the Front only to those exclusively assigned to work for the Front.

How often does the Executive Committee of the Front meet?  How are decisions arrived at?  Who exercises control over it?  If there are disagreements between the Legislative and Executive branches, who mediates?

What is stipulated in the transitional constitution of the PFDJ is that the Executive Committee should schedule and attend a monthly meeting.   In reality, it has never met monthly.  Everyone knows this.   The question of why doesn’t it meet monthly should be directed to and answered by the appropriate institution or individual.  It doesn’t concern me; and I don’t know why.

With respect to decision-making, this body operates the way we did during the Revolution.  It operates based on consensus.  I don’t recall an issue where a demand was made for a vote on the passage of or winning of an issue.  Notwithstanding that this was not practiced, one can say that voting for the passage or carrying of a motion is a democratic message and culture.   This could be one of the issues that could be implemented in the future.

As for exercising control [checks and balances], it is always the case that the Legislature controls the Executive institution.   In our experience, all the transitional constitutions that were adopted at the congresses of the Popular Front mention this process.   As for its implementation, that is a different matter.

If there is a conflict between the Legislative and Executive institutions, there is no judge that can settle the matter.   As one who elects the Executive, the Legislative institution had, and still has, the authority to remove and relegate members of the Executive institution individually or collectively.  In practice, it has never been tried.  

What is your personal view regarding the Draft Law on Political Parties and the Electoral Law?  As a member of the Executive Committee of the political organization, do you support the establishment of other parties?

I have no opinion that is different from those expressed in the articles of our constitution permitting the establishment of political parties; [I have no opinion different from] the articles mentioned in our National Charter and the transitional constitution of the Front permitting the establishment of political parties; from the decisions taken in various meetings of the Central Committee of PFDJ and the National Assembly.   I support the establishment of political parties and the reign of ideological competition within the supremacy of the constitution and for the sake of national interest and the creation of a clear and lucid political environment.   This is not based on one’s support or opposition.  It is established in the constitution that was debated for three years and ratified by the national assembly.   It is the wish and choice of the people.  Obeying the wishes of the people should be the distinguishing feature of the People’s Front and the Government.

Is the fact that the PFDJ has not bequeathed authority to the people excusable or inexcusable?  How do you see that?

It is not acceptable to itemize unacceptable reasons for delaying giving power to the people.  As I stated above, excepting for the one-year period between May 97 and May 98, and even that period had its own problems and it was a short period, I do not think there was time to pass power to the people.   The main and real measurement is the question of what has transpired since the meetings of the Central Committee of PFDJ and the National Assembly to execute the resolutions that were passed then?  Outside this context, it is my opinion that the questions posed and opinions expressed are far from the truth and are not based on evidence.

Why isn’t the conflict within the leadership of Eritrea (if there is any) not solved properly?

If this question is tied to the previous one, the question of giving power to the people, I don’t think there is a difference of opinion other than what I have stated. 

When taking into consideration our existing reality and recent developments, that there should be differences of opinion in our internal affairs within the leadership or junior cadres and ordinary members is mandatory.  And there is difference of opinion.   To refuse to acknowledge this is to hide your wound or to steal a camel and try to be discreet about it.  Because the legislative and executive branches of the government and the front do not conduct regularly scheduled meetings and the lack of discussing these issues has brought up this problem.

To exaggerate the differences above what is appropriate is not proper.  Although the official press presents the problem as non-existent, in the streets, the threats by some of those who are pointing out these [the differences] is not good for the country.   Internal disputes are solved by discussion and understanding not by threats and intimidation.   Your question of “why aren’t the differences solved properly?” is my question as well.  We ask the question and will get the answers jointly.

At present, what are the priorities for the country? 

The major priorities of the country are known by all the people and awaited for eagerly.

The building of a social and democratic system is one and the first.  If we don’t give this a priority and work on it and make it a reality, one fears that the dreams of our people, which were made manifest by our Independence, may yet, once again, be shrouded.   I worry that unless we ascertain this [building of a social and democratic system], economic progress, meaning social justice, and unity and equitable progress [of the people] will be a question mark.

The building and re-enforcing of our national economy is one of the priorities of this period.  We are still lumped with the poorest nations of the world.  We are not free from foreign aid.   It is good to wish good things.  [But] It is not enough to say that we wish our country to be like such a nation.   For our Eritrea to develop economically to the level of the nations we aspire, we have to introduce and implement an economic system that will enable her to do so.    Instead of saying, “this is how Eritrea is seen and described by other nations”, we should be the first to know and understand what is being said about her. 

Ensuring social justice and creating a political environment that encourages that is one of the priorities of our nation.   Under the supremacy of the constitution, there should be freedom of opinion and political expression and competition and all should be in the service of national unity, economic progress of the nation and the people.

Speaking of unity and social justice, what is your view on an issue that is being discussed and mentioned in the yet-to-be-implemented constitution, the issue of languages?

The policy we are following, and have been following for a long time, and one stipulated in our constitution is about the same.  And that is the equality of all languages.   The issue of languages had, at times, even during our Revolutionary experience, been an issue of contention.    For example, in the ‘60’s, within ELF, the Tigrigna language was viewed as the language of the occupiers, those nationalities for whom Tigirigna was not a mother tongue did not like it.   And those of us who use the language, because we were cognizant of the sentiments, were reluctant to use it.    For example, I attribute the fact that I was able to master the Tigre language within months as a byproduct of the sentiments that were a factor.

It was only in 1973, during the integration of the First and Second Popular Forces, that the open discussion of the language issue was initiated.  And the understanding we reached at was this [the following:] within our organization, as a mode of communication and for purposes of military and political orientation we would use the language that is used by most [fighters] and one [a language] that is advanced enough for political and military orientation and, gradually, one that meets the required factors will impose itself.  As for the language that will be used permanently (at a national level), we do not have the authority to decide that.    We said this because, within our organization, and without our decision, Arabic and Tigrigna became the languages of written communication and meeting.  Later, specifically after the launching of DimtSi Hafash [Voice of the Masses radio program], Afar, Tigre and other languages were frequented.   And at schools, the nationalities were taught using their mother tongue, and they still do.

What I want to say here is that the importance of mother tongues in the development of societies and cultural preservation and identity is understood.  On the other hand, it is understood, as well, the importance of communication and understanding between the nine nationalities.  Other than this, the necessity of having official languages for various reasons occasionally props up.   So far, we have been working on the premise that, excepting for a working language, we do not need to proclaim official language or languages.   In our ratified constitution, neither “official” nor “working” language is mentioned; it only states that the “equality of all languages is protected.”  The policy that we had been using prior to the ratification of the constitution will be changed once the constitution is implemented and, hence, the language policy that we adopt should be clear, acceptable to all and one that is based on the constitution and democratic principles.   The people’s view on the use of languages should be heard.  The issue of languages should not be one that can be exploited by anti-unity groups.  As long as it doesn’t work against the development of other languages, as long as it doesn’t disrupt the unity of the people and the nation, I say a language policy should be developed and implemented on the basis of the needs of the majority of the people.    Do we need or do we not need to proclaim official languages?  What was the negative impact resulting from the absence of proclaiming official languages?   What will the negative impact be if we proclaim official languages?  Etc.  I say there should be an open debate and convincing answers to these questions.   I say let’s treat this question as the starting point for the unity of our people, the preservation of mother tongues and economic and cultural development.