The 14^th session of Eritrea�s National Assembly was held between January 29 and February 2^nd, 2002.  

The Chairman, President, Chief Commanding Officer, Supreme Justice, Speaker of the House,  Baby Sitter, came prepared with his agenda.  A more honest description of the agenda would read as follows: 

The Assembly sometimes listened �somberly�; sometimes it held �spirited debate and discussion.�  Then it passed a resolution�presumably unanimously�condemning the Woyane, the defeatists and the journalists and implementing the recommendations of Hafash to exclude people from electing and being elected, to �for the time being� postpone the constitutional right of having political parties and organizations thereby making the elections �more open and participatory.�
What's wrong with this picture?

Here�s more from the theatre�

Woyane Terrible, G-1 Very Good:  the Chairman (and therefore the assembly) told us that it is awaiting the ruling of The Hague which he (and therefore the Assembly) expects to be based on colonial treaties as �stated in the Peace Agreement.�   He didn�t say (and therefore the Assembly did not say) that Eritrea will accept the verdict of the ruling as final and binding, regardless of what its ruling is which is also �stated in the Peace Agreement.� 

In the new lexicon of the G-1, to prepare for contingencies, for worst-case scenarios, is the equivalent of defeatism.  To dissent, to deviate from groupthink is to commit a crime.  Because of this, the government has not learned from its Hanish fiasco and Ethiopia�s Offensives (Sebhat Ephrem: �handebetnet�): it will not psychologically prepare Eritreans for any contingencies.  Although there are hundreds of square miles of disputed territories, the household names are Badme, Zalambesa and Bada/Burie.   If The Hague rules in favor of Ethiopia on any of these three (note: just floating this hypothetical gets you inducted into the �Defeatist� camp), how will Eritreans deal with the shocker?  Will the G-1 contest it on the grounds that the arbitrators deviated from their mandate? 

Corrupt, Defeatist G-15; Patient, Resolute G-1:  The crimes of the dissidents are so huge, the G-1 created a new word for them: �capitulationists.�  (The National Assembly resolutions actually refer to �defeatism� as a crime.) Where does one begin with this farce?  First, if you recall, the G-15, in their open letter, had accused the President of operating in an �unconstitutional and illegal� manner.  They were willing to make their case at the National Assembly where the president, and his defenders, could rebut the allegations.  What does the president do?  He arrests them and then he accuses them of betraying Eritrea�s principles, which are �enshrined in the constitution.�  Does the constitution enshrine the Eritrean value of imprisoning people without charge? 

And what, exactly, are the allegations?  They are a rehash of what the G-1 circulated in its �Discussion Paper� was circulated in PFDJ circles in January 2001, and the major embellishments came courtesy of Eritrea�s Chief Prosecutor, T.M. Negassi. 

If these individuals provided intelligence to the enemy, weakened Eritrea�s negotiation position, telegraphed messages to the enemy via facilitators, etc, then that is an extremely serious charge that should be referred to an independent court where the defendants would have a right to defend themselves and, if found guilty, pay the price.   Simultaneously, if that is true and the government knew about it, instead of the Assembly complimenting it for its �patience�, �resolve�, etc, it should conduct investigations for this serious breach and gross negligence by the government for allowing this to happen.

But the circumstantial evidence suggests that all of the above is bogus allegation:

(1)     Those who were talked out of signing the open letter are not being charged with anything, suggesting that the crime was dissent and not treason;

(2)     It is inconceivable that a government who had people at high levels (at Ministry of Foreign Affairs level; at National Reserve general level) would allow such high crimes in the midst of a life-or-death war;

(3)     Until the time that the cessation of hostilities agreement was signed, none of the accused has talked to anyone in the public about their reservations or disagreement with the war policy.  Can anyone think of anyone who was, in public, more hawkish than Haile Menkerios?  Can anyone point to a single thing Haile Menkerios said before June 2000 (after signing the Cessation of Hostilities) that was different from the usual, �don�t worry; Eritrea is in good hands��etc?

(4)   The Chairman�s report suggests that had the G-15 learned from their lessons and humbled themselves, they would have been forgiven.   Would high crimes like treason be brushed off just like that if the person learns to prostrate before the Chairman?  What does that say about the power of the Chairman?  What does that say about the credibility of his claims?

If the Hague ruling goes Eritrea�s way, the G-1 will boast that it was victorious despite the efforts of the �capitulationists.�  If it doesn�t go our way, the G-1 will find some way to pin the blame on the G-15.  Perhaps their one year effort to defame Eritrea, and its government influenced the judges?  Who knows�these guys try anything and they certainly have enough buyers for their goodies.

Adopting the Elias-Ghidewon Amendment:  Three individuals were asked by Hwyet to present a proposal on the future of PFDJ.  Three alternatives were presented: the dissolution of the party; the reform/splintering of the party and, finally, the entrenchment of the party.   The latter, which was submitted by Elias Amare and Ghidewon A. Asmerom, has been "adopted" to a remarkable degree by the National Assembly.    Among the arguments the duo made were that (a) PFDJ should be the sole party for a while; (b) the military should be eligible to vote and to be elected; (c) the 30% set-aside for female legislators is constitutional and should be retained; (d) the PFDJ should retain an important role in the economic life of Eritrea; (e) that the �traitors� should not be eligible to cast votes or be elected.    All of these proposals were accepted, we are told, because they are in the best interest of Eritrea. It is pure coincidence that all are in the best interest of the sole political party, the PFDJ.

The Assembly spent a full day and a half (i.e. more than one-third of its session) on the draft electoral law.  This means either that the subject was very important or that the G-1 was indifferent to the outcome (for reasons having to do with the next thing on the agenda) and thus gave the Assembly all the latitude it wanted to deliberate on the issue.   Borrowing a page from Reagan, the Chairman added a heart-tugging prop to the show: he introduced the retired combatant, Ramadan Mohammed Nur, as the Election Commissioner.   Ramadan was the only senior EPLF leader who had said, after independence, �mission accomplished� and retired.   He was a rarity in Eritrea: the sole Elder Statesman either because the others wouldn�t retire or because they were living in involuntary exile.  Now, he has been dragged back to be a Commissioner of a One Party Election. Another sad day for Eritrea.

What Political Pluralism?  According to the resolutions of the National Assembly, the �majority opinion� of the people who attended the public discussions on these issues was that �political parties are not needed.   A smaller number held the view that this is not the right time for parties, while a few expressed the opinion that the draft law on the political parties and organizations should be amended and ratified.�

Think about it.  The majority opinion of the people is that political parties are not needed ever.   Of course, when they say �people who attended the public discussions�, they mean for the most part people who are either fans of the PFDJ or captive audiences of the PFDJ.   When I say captive audience, lest we forget, all the �public discussions� were facilitated by PFDJ or government officials.  In Eritrea, they were conducted mostly by Abdella Jaber who is PFDJ�s Organizational Whip. [Abdella Jaber invited Eritrean elders in Australia to a meeting just to express his respect to the elders.  One of them said, �we are flattered; but why can�t you show the same deference to the elders in Eritrea?�  Abdella was no longer charming; he turned on his Wedini personality and started trying the arrested in public.]  

To state the case plainly, the discussions in Eritrea on whether or not we should have political parties were facilitated by the person who is responsible for increasing the membership of the sole political party.   Can you say conflict of interest?

As anyone who has talked to a PFDJ fan will tell you, those who support the G-1 really do hate political pluralism with a passion.  I am not talking about the group who said no political parties now; the timing is wrong.  I am talking about those who don�t want political parties, ever, period. Even after the constitution was ratified with its clear references to political parties, they talked as if that article did not exist.  They talk of political parties as �western� concepts that have no relevance to Eritrea. 

Now, here, the PFDJ has a problem with this group because the party has been saying, since its second congress 1987 (as it never tires of reminding us), that it is committed (in principle, that is) to political parties.   But its most die-hard constituency is saying No Political Parties ever.   The Party cannot afford to tell them to shape up (they send money); but the party cannot afford to be seen as a Permanent One Party Advocate (bad PR).  The solution?  The Party apologizes on behalf of its constituency: the alarming calls for one party permanence were due to timing because the discussions were �conducted at a time of national emergency emanating from external aggression�.time when opportunists and defeatists as well as external elements attempted to highjack the issue of political parties to divide the people and pit them against each other.�    Even the authoritarian tendencies of their constituency is blamed on the usual suspects.  A more honest answer would have been:  our fans are used to one party system and they are nervous about the possibility of us being replaced.

Those of you who actually believe that this postponement of for the �time being� means 2-3 years need to remember that our Transitional Government has been in power for 10 transitional years; that its 1994 PFDJ Charter said that it will, henceforth, the party�s congress will be held on time (now long expired); that the unimplemented constitution has been ratified since May 1997 (4+ years.)

Adopting the Zemehret Amendment:  In one of its investigative reports, Gedab News reported that Zemehret was compiling the case against the private press.  The impressive sounding �Evaluation of Experiences of the Private Press� was nothing more than the photocopying of the interviews, articles, cartoons (!) and letters to the editor that appeared in the private weeklies like Meqaleh, Keste Debena, and Tsgenai.  Ironically, because these �irresponsible� papers were all snapped up by the Hafash (who is mature about everything except his reading habits), Brother Zemehret had to download the pages from Asmarino, the website that had hosted the papers. 

What law did the private press break?  Apparently, they took advantage of a loophole in the 1996 Press Proclamation.  In other words, they did not break the law but they took advantage of a flaw in the law.  They should have understood the intent of the law when it was drafted.  And they can�t plead ignorance because he had cautioned them many, many times.  In ordinary governments, if there is a loophole in a law, then the legislature closes the loopholes; in extraordinary governments, the citizens are victimized for the errors of the drafters of the proclamation.  

So now we have a �committee� (Censor is such a negative word) that is going to write guidelines to make them as responsible as stellar (and unreadable) papers like trgta, hadas ertra, and dimSi ertra, and Eritrea Profile.  This way, we can be told by both the government-owned media and the privately-owned media how wonderful our government is.  And the harshest criticism we will read is of the �zmlketom akal entezHasbulu do aymHashen?�   The rest of the articles will be constructive notes in the variety of  �wedekoy Tefiuni, zra'ayo Aynu ybrah!�  

Is there enough for "a quorum"?

Adopting The Budget:   Anytime one challenges the legitimacy of the PFDJ, people will tell you, �look at all the asphalt roads paved!  From distant hamlets to zone capitals.  These guys work!  You can see it for yourself; just visit Eritrea.  Look at the way they live.  So modest!�

Have you ever been on the Asmara-Massawa road that snakes around the edge of cliffs?  Have you been on the Massawa-Akordat train that goes (went) through dark tunnels, hills and plains?  Very impressive.  But you wouldn�t say, �it is evident that the Italians really loved Eritrea�, would you?  Because you know that colonial Italy built that entire infrastructure to serve its military and economic interests.

Now, before you get terribly offended about my comparing the PFDJ with colonial Italy, (an example used to demonstrate absurdity) consider the following: how much of the budget that the assembly approved is going to be a case where PFDJ owned businesses are the sole contractors?  How much of the taxpayer�s money is given on competitive bid contracts?

Would you be impressed about roads paved if you found out most of the commercial business that drives on the paved roads is PFDJ and NUEYS owned businesses?  What if the largest agro-business is part of the PFDJ Empire? As is fisheries.  As is transportation, communication, and construction (38% of the budget.)

$3.1 billion on education (mother tongue language; deteriorating university where the Chancellor annually stiffs their graduation ceremonies to make 55 trips to Sawa, home of the largest source for PFDJ businesses free labor); health (where the government makes token efforts about HIV/AIDS), information services (again, dominated by PFDJ businesses.)

The Shaebia.org report tells the whole story of the Assembly�s priorities: on January 31^st, it told us that by late afternoon the Assembly had �briefly touched� on the 10.9 billion budget; by next morning, we were told it was ratified the afternoon before.  PFDJ seems to have modified the Adam Smith/Frederick Hayek theory of capitalism/economics, which states that individuals, working on their own selfish motives, end up enriching the country.  The PFDJ model is about how a political party, working on its own selfish motives, ends up enriching the nation.    It is a reversal of the Latin American model where business conglomerates run their own militias; here, we have a case of a military organization owning business conglomerates.    

I am not an economist and PFDJ may just have stumbled on a perfect economic model; what I am saying is that you don�t have to be a civil libertarian to see that the price of disagreeing with PFDJ�losing your citizenship rights--is too high.  And that is a lesson people learn only when they find themselves on the enemy list.