|
To print: Click here or Select File and then Print from your browser's menu. Click here to return to the home page. |
Featured Articles
Implicit personal motive(s) aside, one who has read part I (July 30, 2003, Awate.com) of Woldeyesus Ammar’s articles, would understand that his objective is, more or less, showing the role ethnicity and religion have played in the schism that split the ELF-RC. Part II of the series has already been out on Awate.com on August 12. Reading the material there, one could see that the piece was intended to serve as a kind of historical setting for what he said he is going to produce next. We are told that one of these will deal with how Moslems are alienated by the ruling regime in Eritrea, which shall then be followed by another on the resurgence of ethnocentrism. A third one, which might sum up his contentions, shall take up the failure of some “well wishing“ lot of Eritreans to properly understand “the problems and dangers behind the crisis” between the ELF-RC the ENA. All these are anticipated to elaborate on how and why the crisis inside the RC was manipulated to serve the power interest of some elements in the leadership that hail from a specific ethnic group or region. Whatever its validity to his purpose, Woldeyesus has introduced his contention with an interesting historical analogy. This is related to two religions, Hinduism and Islam, failing to co-exist in the Indian sub-continent, and, consequently, giving rise to a new state called Pakistan. Furthermore, a similar dichotomy involving Islam and Judaism is said to have been the reason for planting Israel in the land of historic Palestine. Both were noted as violent cases that ushered in the period of de-colonisation in the 40s of the last century. For justice and peace minded, those sad episodes of history do stand as reminders of terrible legacies, namely, the Palestinian tragedy and the recurrent destructive wars between India and Pakistan. Their memories continue to remain alive by the on-going arms race that has been siphoning much needed resources of the concerned peoples, and the uncertainties of the future, which the nuclear arsenals that three of the involved parties possess sustain. Such frightful scenarios will keep on hanging on the horizon as long as justice is not done in the Middle East and Kashmir. Now, while noting the writing of Eritrea’s contemporary history still awaits professional research to sift facts from political propaganda of the past many decades, we Eritreans should have good reason to be proud of our politicians of the 40s. It is important to celebrate the level of their remarkable awareness that equipped them to recognise the impact, supportive or detrimental, as Woldeyesus had opined, religion could have had in our nation’s pursuit for self-determination and nation building. We owe them gratitude for sparing us from the fates that befell the peoples of Palestine and those living in the Indian sub-continent. Moreover, the reported breach by the late Ibrahim Sultan and Ato Woldeab Woldemariam of the meat consumption taboo as token of unity and brotherhood was another piece of information that generations of Eritreans need to take good note of and emulate. However, one must stress, at this point, that lasting unity and social harmony in conditions existing in Eritrea would definitely depend much less on goodwill gestures, (despite their value) and more on consensual acknowledgement and legitimisation of fundamental national principles upon which the modern Eritrean state would have to stand. Unity is about equitable sharing of rights and obligations under a just system. Anyway, this writer would fully concur with Woldeyesus Ammar about the credit he acknowledged regarding the role patriotic leaders of the past had played and noteworthy initiatives they took, for instance, the reported letter of the late Ibrahim to the 1978 EPLF congress. The good news that one can recall was the fact that the ELF did continue the trend which Ato Woldeab Woldemariam and Ibrahim Sultan Ali had set in motion in the 40s during the era of the armed struggle. Many enlightened commanders encouraged their fighters to eat and live together and die side by side in glorious battles of liberation. That conscious gradual social revolution was thwarted by the forces of division under the banner of “Nehnan Illamanan”, which Woldeyesus has rightly accused as agents of alienation endangering the destiny of Eritrea as a polity. But, the question remains what guarantees are there to prevent neo Nihanan Illamananistas from taking over and continuing the legacy of their progenitors under new garbs? Shouldn’t one be worried about perceptions that see and advocate the relevance of “x” or “y” names as criteria for leadership positions? Ethnic relations and their impact in affairs of some societies in the general area of the African Continent, and the Horn, could hardly be cause for surprise knowing the historical stages through which they were forced to pass. Natural evolution of those societies was effectively curtailed by centuries of all-round domination. Hence, backwardness and impoverishment left behind by departing colonial powers had become ground for rendering political power and authority as licenses for access to scarce resources. There is, thus, little wonder that race and ethnic affiliation would influence politics and managerial affairs. Inferences by authorities as Professor Mazroui and Huntington on some of those cases may have relevance to specific conditions. But, one would wonder how all this would serve as conceptual launching pad for relating ethnicity to the political crisis in the ELF-RC? Nonetheless, little can be said at this point until one would see how “ethnic revival and ethnic politics” have been “spreading like forest fire” in the Horn region, and how much of the Eritrean landscape the flames have consumed. It is true that in Eritrea, as in many similar cases, religion is, and has been, a source of identity because it is a reservoir of cultural and social heritage for each of the two major segments of our society. In fact, the crux of the current topical issue, national reconciliation, for the conscious proponents of national unity is reaching agreement on solid ground for their coexistence in a just system, and in a unitary state. Moreover, Eritrea is blessed to escape internal religious strife. We definitely owe that to the wisdom and maturity of our political leaders of the past. This was possible despite that religion was utilised both for its own sake, as well as political expediency, at some critical stages of our people’s search for self-determination and nationhood. Demitros’ manipulation of the Orthodox Church in the 40s was one instance; the message implicit in Selfi Netzanet’s Nihnan Illamanan in the 70s was another. The present religion-based mobilisations against injustices and violence done by the current oppressive regime is an indication of how religion, as source of identity and organisation of communal life could be made to serve as rallying element. But, while Woldeyesus Ammar is right in saying that “the gross mistakes committed by the PFDJ [and EPLF] regime” has brought us “at a perilous crossroads” that could split up our nation on religious lines into two, one would respectfully differ with him on his view about the external element he suggested, namely, “‘political Islam’”. Neither he, nor any of the so far published research, fully proved the outside connection of either of the two currently active movements in Eritrea. The raison d’ętre for the continuation of these movements and the causes for their origin and growth have be sought in the self-serving alliances and policies of the EPLF leaders starting with the civil war of the of 1981-82, and later on as rulers of our country. Thus, jumping to conclusion that Moslem elite have abandoned their former patriotic role and regressing to be “part of the danger” of polarising Eritrea into two antagonistic camps of Islam and Christianity is highly ominous and superfluous statement; it just lacks in factual substance. On the contrary, the danger lies in fact that some members of the elite on the other side of the divide blowing some issues in the ENA Charter out of their essence and meaning and trying to manipulate them for political ends. It is nonsense to suspect or accuse Eritreans, Moslems or Christians, of reneging on their patriotic commitments. What they are demanding is nothing more than rectification of injustices done to their communities, which they rightly believe have paid more than share in the hard struggle for self-determination and nationhood, as Woldeyesus, and other patriots like him alike, have unambiguously articulated. If one needs on the Moslem side clues, one could understand the extent of their demand by rationally considering their acceptance of the articles contained in the ENA Charter. This could further be reinforced by their readiness to go as far as changing their names to allay anxieties of their compatriots. No one would disagree that the coalescing in 1999 of the Eritrean opposition opposed to the repressive regime under one umbrella was positive. One could even go as far as terming the event as historic. Certainly, too, the AENF as it used to be known then, never at any time claimed that it would do the job of removing the regime or monopolising the post regime tasks of the transition alone. The door was wide open for individuals and organisations ready to accept the Charter; this is one fact. The other was that the alliance was never impervious to “restructuring” and transforming itself to a more “representative force” by including other forces, be they new or old. Its readiness for this was proven by its acceptance of Mr. Ahmed Mohammed Nasser’s blueprint outlining ways and means for its upgrading, which he had presented in 2002 on behalf of his own organisation. Thus, Woldeyesus Ammar’s assertion that the alliance had failed to restructure itself cannot hold water. Every objective observer knows now that it was at the critical first opportunity to introduce changes that the alliance was abruptly hindered on 21 October 2002 by the withdrawal of the ELF-RC, whose presence Woldeyesus Ammar refers as “reassuring and balancing”. The solidarity or criticism of the so-called new forces has no relevance to the setback or advancement of the alliance. Moreover, the claim that it depended on “’friends’” rather national options was a latter day witless “innovation”. There is no single clue yet to prove that allegation. Neither had those friends “chosen” a leadership for it, let alone tamper with the Charter. One would ask, once more, why are any of those who had heard the story of Herui ‘s nomination and election not willing to come to the open and name the organisations? At this point, one would seriously ask Woldeyesus Ammar why he thinks the “old” opposition would be perceived as Moslem and Christian block? How are religion and ethnicity fit in this equation? Would the future be determined by what the fate of the Seyoum camp is going to be? Thinking that the opposition would simply become “Moslem block” just because Seyoum’s group will not be willing or unable to be part of the alliance is preposterous, to say the least. One can comfortably detect that there seems to be a conviction, real or imagined, that ethnicity and religion were at the core of the schism that split the ELF-RC. One remains on standby to read more on the issue as promised. As a last word, one doubts the sanity of calling on others, Moslem elite in this case, to stop being part of divisive forces. Woldeyesus Ammar, and perhaps many others as well, will have to do serious soul searching before addressing others on this score. At least, they should boldly acknowledge their role in the ordeal the ELF-RC had gone through and the disaster it ended up in. Then, the call to halt “the madness” of polarisation would make sense and receive positive response. |
|
© Copyright 2002 by Awate.com |