|
To print: Click here or Select File and then Print from your browser's menu. Click here to return to the home page. |
Perspective
I like to add one or two logs to the bonfire that has been built by some of Awate.com's esteemed contributors. There seem to be an enormous consensus on the problem and the hoped-for result, but the method that has to be used has become quite polarizing. The regime in Asmara is the cause of most of Eritrea's ills and its eradication would usher in a fertile and conducive environment to install democratic governance and constitutional rule. At the risk of oversimplification, this, I think is where our consensus ends. The purpose of this piece is not to dwell on what we agree, but to focus on the divergent ideas that have been proposed by Seyoum, Paulos N, Paulos B, Salih G, K.G., Burhan Ali and Ahmed. (Any name omission is not intentional.) At the heart of this current debate is the saliency of non-violent struggle within the Eritrean reality. The debate is not whether the people have the right of self-defense as Paulos Natnael has rightly pointed out. The debate is not about principles. The debate is about strategies. At the risk of redundancy, let me state why I think there is a strong consensus of principles. Almost all the authors, either explicitly or implicitly, have argued that the people have the right of rebellion against an illegitimate regime, and that the use of force in a state of war is morally right. The use of force against an illegitimate regime is not only right when used in self-defense. Force can be rightly used to dismantle an illegitimate regime. The right of revolt is an essential right in a democracy. When there is a government that is afraid of the people, there is freedom, and when the people are afraid of their government, there is tyranny and bondage. The indomitable spirit of revolt of the people is a necessary and essential condition of any thriving and viable democratic governance. The Eritrean people, there fore, have the right to change and dismantle this illegitimate regime in any fashion suitable to them. If the use of force is a viable option, the Eritean people, should not spare any opportunity to claim what is rightfully theirs. If the use of non-violence is a more viable option, then, by all means that is what they should do. The issue here is not which is approach is morally right or wrong. Both are right. The right of revolt against an illegitimate regime, whether it manifests in violence or not, is always right. Everything might have a season, but not the right of revolt against a despotic regime. The right of revolt was right in the past, is right today, and it will remain right in the future. There is no freedom-loving society that surrenders the right of revolt. Freedom can only be preserved, cherished and protected if the people are the reservoir of power. Freedom can only be preserved if it is institutionalized. Democracy is the institutionalization of freedom. If you love freedom, you love democracy, and you absolutely abhor tyranny. The regime in Asmara is utterly abhorrent and it must be completely eradicated. Now, let me come back, to where my esteemed friends differ. Some of them have advocated for a non-violent regime change (Seyoum, Salih, Paulos, Paulos, KG.) and Berhan and Ahmed have questioned the viability of this option. It is important to note that none of them have advocated for violence, and it is even more important that all of them seem to think that non-violence, if possible, is the preferred way. One can certainly infer that there is a whole lot going on for the non-violent approach. Perhaps, Paulos Natnael has got it right. The people advocating non-violent change have a lot of elaboration to do. Putting aside, the unnecessary digressions (unnecessary roughness in football metaphor) Berhan and Ahmed have made, their criticism is right on the mark and it is incumbent on all of us advocating non-violence to show clarity of our thinking. The issues under discussion are so pivotal that we cannot afford to be misunderstood. I'm sure, by now; you all have figured out that I belong to the camp that advocates non-violent change. I support those that advocate non-violence, but I don't condemn those that want to use violence to claim what is rightfully theirs. I simply lack the authority, moral or not, to condemn them. I would not support them, and I would try to persuade them to come to my side, but I would never condemn them. The camp that advocates non-violence is not, however, monolithic. For instance, I don't subscribe to what Seyoum and KG have proposed. Seyoum has advocated for a "negotiated settlement" and K.G. has aired similar views in his "push-pull strategy." I'm fundamentally opposed to this approach. The only negotiation I would support is that of a tyrant-exit from the Asmara airport, and only if it would spare the life of one Eritrean. What is at stake is so fundamental that it should not be open to negotiations. You negotiate on strategies and not on fundamental principles. We are advocating for democracy, rule of law and the respect for human rights. The regime does not need to negotiate with us. If it is serious about democracy, constitution and human rights, all it needs is practice them and respect them. Negotiation with "higdefite" regime is not wise, practical or desirable. I'm not saying this because, as some of you have argued, "higdef" or "sheabia" is an organization that was conceived and baptized in violence and that it only understands violence. No. That might be historically true and I understand why it merits our attention, but my concern is bigger than that. We cannot and should not negotiate on constitutional rule, respect of human rights and our freedoms. Any negotiation with "higdef" is bound to be on the basis of power-relations, and the opposition is not in a position to ensure the sanctity of our fundamental principles in its engagement with "higdef". Tyranny and freedom cannot live side by side. One has to win over the other. Freedom has to win and shall win over tyranny. Those "higdefites" responsible for the misery and oppression of our people will be held accountable and be brought to justice. Anybody who thinks we are not taking notes is dead wrong. Time permitting, I would share my views, of how I think the non-violent struggle must be waged and what I think it is the best option. This evening, I read Paulos' piece and I thought I add my two cents worth. As usual, I welcome your comments, Please contact me at: weriz@yahoo.com |
|
© Copyright 2002 by Awate.com |