On October 2, 2000, the Eritrean National Assembly concluded its session. During the session, it discussed the Third Offensive, reshuffling of cabinet members, as well as social, economic policies and political policies. On political matters, it appointed a committee headed by Sherifo to draft electoral law and political/parties organizations proclamations, submit them for discussion to the people and then presenting them to the next session of the National Assembly (March 2001). Elections were to be held in December 2001.
Given that the Eritrea-Ethiopia Cessation of Hostilities Agreement was signed on June 13, 2000 and the formal Eritrea-Ethiopia Ceasefire was signed on December 12, 2000, it could be said that the last National Assembly session was held while Eritrea and Ethiopia were in a formal state of war. Now read excerpts from the contradiction-riddled interview President Isaias Afwerki had with Al-Hayat periodical: Al Hayat: The dissenters state that obstacles were placed to prevent formation of parties and that the Central Council and the National Assembly did not hold scheduled-meetings. What do you have to say about this? PIA: I am not afraid of meetings. But I will not hold illegal meetings. I will not call for meetings in the midst of an environment of war. If we look back to our history, were meetings being conducted on schedule during the Revolution? And were we bound by the timelines scheduled? No. Likewise with the other Fronts: not bounded by time. Notwithstanding [the above], we had held meetings and discussed old issues during and after the war. The war curtailed the efforts of a long-standing committee that was drafting laws on elections and party formation. To the question of why doesnt the committee resume its work? I would like to state that it is discussing the issue before it presents it to the public. Al-Hayat: The draft on Electoral Law and Party-Formation has been finalized and presented to the people. Does this indicate that elections will be held as scheduled, at the end of this year? PIA: What one needs to be aware of here is that nothing can be accomplished by placing pressure on the people. Even if it is decided that something will be done by a certain date, the fundamental factor is the issue of principle. Before scheduling a date, the fundamental issue of principle here is the participation of the people in the discussion phase. And so, what comes first is the discussion, then the timing.There is nothing sacred about setting a time. If the people say, lets postpone it, the National Assembly should honor the decision [of the people.]
It is now July 2001. Sherifo is gone and has been gone for five months. His committee is in purgatory, and the responsibility it was given by the National Assembly, has been, ahem, adopted by the Presidents Office. The Presidents Officethrough its delegatesis conducting peoples participation sessions. The Presidents Officeand later on, the Presidenthas unilaterally decided that the next election will be a contest of independents. A group of unhappy reformers (between 15-19, publicly; many more, we are told by Gedab News, secretly) want the National Assembly to meet. The president says he wont meet because we are in a war environment. There was nothing sacred about the committee.
There was nothing sacred about the decision of the National Assembly. There is nothing sacred about holding meetings on time.
Given this, how can there be anything sacred about holding the elections on December 2001? You shouldnt take bets. But if you are the betting kind, if you are a compulsive gambler, bet a Nackfa or two that the elections will be postponed.
Elections and reflections
Lets now look at the discussion phase which will be recorded by PFDJ historians as one that had unprecedented and historic participation by Eritreans.
The latest meetings (called forums by the PFDJ organizers) to discuss the Draft laws on party-formation and elections are a clear indication of the size of the hard-core element of PFDJ. No more packed house meetings. No more hysterical clapping and cheering. No more teacher-student relation. People have decided not to beg for their rights anymore; they will take what is theirs.
Unlike what the official media and its peripheries claim, the meetings were not well attended. From Washington to Stockholm, from Riyadh to Geneva. Even legendary Milano, the city that was the stronghold of the PFDJ until recently.
In Riyadh, his Excellency Alamin Mohammed Said led a poorly-attended meeting. When asked about the Reformers, he expressed befuddlement at those who live in government houses and drive government cars and criticize the government. Outrageous, we agree. They had perks in exchange for zipping the mouth; cars for being docile and houses for being subservient. This is a clear violation of their agreement. Off with their head!
In Geneva, the meeting issued a communiqué in opposition to the principles of the meeting. In Stockholm, shockingly few people attended the meeting. Later, when the embassy called a PFDJ member meeting to salvage the low turn out, even fewer loyalists turned out. In San Jose, at about the same time Ambassador Baduri was holding his meeting with about sixty people in San Jose, (later reported to be 300, an six-fold inflation), Seyoum O. Michael of the ELF-RC had just finished his meeting with a relatively larger number of people in Oakland.
Now that the Hardliners are a minority, we advise all democrats, whether they belonged to the PFDJ or other opposition organization or were independents, to be compassionate and caring. It is incumbent upon them to dialogue and explain patiently to the Hardliners that the path they have taken has done enough damage to our country. That it is time they changed their position on national issues and stopped acting like a cult. That it is time to join hands and carry our country to the level of the dreams of our martyrs: a country at peace with itself and with others.
We need to join hands on the road to democratization and rule of law. We need to believe in dialogue and tolerance. I hate your guts and everything you stand for; but, I am ready to sit with you and iron things out is very different compared to I hate your guts and I will exterminate you. If we can extend civility and goodwill to our neighbors on the basis of whether we like it or not, we are neighbors forever, why can we not extend the same logic to our own compatriots? Whether we love each other or hate each other, we are destined to live together. We might as well make our coexistence if not enjoyable at least peaceful. We need to struggle against the culture of exclusion and arrogance for we have seen what that culture produces.
Petitions
If petitions were effective, we would have petitioned the PFDJ to disclose the whereabouts of the people it illegally detained many years ago. We would have asked the power abusing PFDJ to release all prisoners of conscience. In the top of our petition, we would have requested that the Special Court be dismantled. But does a system that doesnt respect its own bylaws yield to public pressure and civilized calls to reason? Will such a system yield to a public petition? Unfortunately NO. We have seen enough from the system that doesnt hear the heartbeat of its people. It listens to the narrow clique that surrounds it and considers that representative of the Eritrean people.
Our elders, the religious leaders and dignitaries, should get out of their silence and be more assertive. They should act swiftly whenever they see the rights of Eritreans trampled over. Until such a time that the civil society is well established, the people should be more assertive in calling for the punishment of the wrong doer and rectifying of mistakes. In this aspect, the intellectuals should be able to identify the real force that is hindering national reconciliation.
Petitions are calls asking an authority to bend the law a little bit in a country where the law rules supreme. People make petition to reverse a decision; to ask for clemency, etc. Please forgive sort of begging. In a country where no known rules exist, petition is even more of a begging exercise: we know you have the power but please be kind and forgive. A rare case of petition will be to mediate between two antagonistic groups. It is disappointing to see people petitioning for a right decision when they should be demanding for the right decision to be made.
The Other Language Issue
Political discourse comes in many tones; and tones of political discourse come natural. In politics, the most accepted language is the diplomatic language. Diplomacy; and generally, public belief holds that diplomatic language is a language of hypocrisy. It was Winston Churchill who defined diplomacy as the art of telling someone to go to hell in a way that the listener actually looks forward to going to hell. The tone of any discourse determines the result of any discourse. We at the Awate Foundation aspire to a reconciled Eritrea, yet we are sometimes reminded of our undiplomatic language in our editorial and, occasionally, in the content of some of the writers who sneak through. We agree and we apologize and we will try harder.
But we are one website, among many, and if one looks at the tone of the writers (supporters and opposition alike), the tone of our language is distressing. Why is that? We are not social scientists but we think a good beginning would be to look at the prevailing political situation in Eritrea. And importantly we need to look at the prevailing political language of the PFDJnot because the opposition is any better but because they are not as influential. Lets observe the speeches of the PFDJ leadership. The presidents office, in any country, is the loudest microphone. It helps set the tone of the nations language, culture and mood and it is for precisely this reason that, in the US, the President is said to have the moral bully pulpit.
In the name of candor, honesty, straightforwardness, etc, a great many offensive things have been uttered by the President of Eritrea. Unquotable quotes from the President and his officials could fill volumes. The badmouthing, vulgar language and insulting of ones own people makes the body and soul shudder with disgust. As recently as two weeks ago, president Isaias gave an interview to the Londonite Arabic Daily, Al-Hayat. In that interview, Isaias referred to the Reformers who have issue with his governance as a mere Noisy Barrel. (this was the same metaphor used to dismiss the threat of Woyane.) Now, he was referring to senior officials of the party that he leads and who until recently were senior officials of his government. Furthermore, these are individuals who for decades shared sunshine and darkness with him. They are people who burned their youth side by side with him in damp and narrow trenches.
If anyone is trying to find out why some Eritrean political discourse is so ugly, look for the cause nowhere beyond the Presidential office. The Arabic Adage says it best: iza kana rebilbeiti biTebli daribun, fema Ala ahlihi illa 'rreqsi. If the head of the house starts beating the drums, the rest of the family has no choice but to dance. Sometimes we do dance to the tune of the prevailing culture of discourse. And we dont like it. Tourists in foreign lands buy booklets that promise to teach tourists the language of their host country. We use references from the uncountable speeches of the PFDJ and its press to learn the language of the powerhouse. We use the language of the powerhouse, not because we would like to promote their unbecoming language, but because they understand their language better than any other language. We go to great length to speak their language, to use their polemic, because we really want to communicate with them. But, in the process, who suffers is the ordinary Eritrean, the one unattached to any party, who wants nothing more, but to read, to learn, to be entertained about his country with his/her country folk. And for subjecting you to the crossfire, we apologize and pledge that we will continue to monitor our language and to improve. Because we think some things, like your trust, are sacred.
the awate team |
