The history of the mob in the United States is illuminating. The mafia had its own laws, its "code." Dont be a squealer, a rat, dont talk about what goes on in the Family to the outside world. Obey the rules, if you dont, punishment will be meted out: cutting a pinkie, a horse head on your bed, getting whacked. There will be no exception: an action and a reaction, in strict adherence to the "law." They demanded protection money, usually from the immigrant Italian society and, goes the legend, they only punished those who broke their rules. What "benefit" did the people get? The mob banished undesirables from their neighborhood and kept order. The mobs message was: City Hall isnt going to pay attention to your woes, we will keep law and order, but for a price. The mob was organized by the principles of fear, loyalty and offering a sense of belonging.
The parallels with Eritrea are too obvious to mention. And how will the mob be brought down? We have several options but none of them includes going to the Godfather and telling him he is in violation of the same rules he wrote or commissioned their writing. There is no legislature that will check the executive. Consider this: Since 1995, the Sudanese opposition umbrella group, National Democratic Alliance (NDA), has had more meetings in Asmara than the Eritrean National Assembly. That is how serious the "Eritrean National Assembly" is. We all know how independent the judiciary is. It is basically a one man show; some argue it always was.
A Higher Law
In the absence of a just law, those of us opposed to the system in Asmara have proposed a number of higher laws to rally and inspire people to our cause. The most charitable thing we can say about our efforts is that they had "mixed results" which is a polite way of sayingwe have ways to go. Our efforts are disjointed, unfocused, un-cordinated. This is not to say our effort was fruitless; it is to say the fruits are small and undeveloped. We have knocked down the PFDJ a few notches, without elevating ourselves a proportionate number of notches.
In the absence of the rule of law, those opposed to the PFDJ have appealed to a higher law. Which higher law? I can think of at least six sources of higher law that have been used by the diverse membership of the opposition: the Eritrean constitution, the martyrs of the revolutionary war, the charters of the opposition, traditional Eritrean laws, religious laws and international law. For the purposes of discussion, I will list them here and provide the strength and weakness of each appeal.
i. The Eritrean Constitution: One appeal has been to the Eritrean Constitution. The argument here is that that unlike all other previous documents that are now, in one way or another, being used to administer the government--the PFDJ Charter, the Penal Code, the Proclamations, treaties with foreign nations--- the Eritrean Constitution was actually drafted with input from the Eritrean people--who did attend meetings, who did provide input--and was adopted by a Constituent Assembly elected by the people for just such purpose. Moreover, the Constitution has a clause that allows amendments so changes can always be made it; what is permanent is constitutionalism; what is changeable is the constitution.
Weakness: To some people, it defies commonsense to say that this all-powerful and exclusionary person had one rare break where he uncharacteristically gave up control and let the people have their say. The Constitution then becomes indistinguishable from any other Isaias fiat and not worthy defending, particularly when those who allegedly wrote it wont come to its defense. Moreover, if the constitution is amended by Isaias and Co (remember, the government is the law and all it would take is one man and a rubber stamp "national assembly" to change moods into the law of the land) tomorrow so that all the things we like about it are gone, on what basis do we argue that the old constitution should be implemented and the new one should be discarded?
ii. The Martyrs: In the United States, particularly in the South, it is not unusual to spot people wearing a button that reads WWJD, short for What Would Jesus Do? The message is: if you are facing a tough ethical question, just ask yourself what would Jesus do, and once you answer that, youll solve your ethical dilemma. Similarly, in the Middle East, one can find many stickers that are direct quotes from the Kuran and the Hadith, which are meant to be constant reminders on how we Muslims should lives our lives. In Eritrea, whose entire essence is defined by the sacrifice of those who were martyred for its cause, the question is ofen phrased, "what would our martyrs say?" This is why, I think, the word "traitor" or "betrayer" is such a common adjective in the Eritrean political lexicon.
Weakness: Those who support the government claim that the martyrs would have been very proud of the state of affairs because the new generation has safeguarded what they died for: Eritreas sovereignty. There are a million and one songs and poems to drive home this point. Those of us who oppose the government claim that the martyrs would have been extremely disappointed to see that Eritrea has replaced a foreign tyrant by a home grown one. In other words, this appeal is open to broad interpretation.
iii. Opposition Charters: A political charter of the opposition is meant to be a unifying contract which binds organizations and their membership to a constitution which articulates a peoples goals. In the 1950s, when Eritreas federal arrangement with Ethiopia was dissolved, the exiled members of the parliament talked about forming a government in exile to substitute for the dissolved Eritrean parliament. There was similar proposal floated by Herui T Bairou in 2001: forming a parliament-in-exile, which would substitute for the dysfunctional Eritrean parliament.
Weakness: At present, the various charters of the opposition groups have not proven to be the centers of gravity for their own members much less the larger Eritrean population.
iv. Traditional Law: Since the nation-state is not acting like one, why not look for guidance from the days we as a people used to govern ourselves prior to becoming a nation-state? Traditional laws. These laws-Higi Endaba--may not have been sophisticated enough to deal with interstate commerce and womens rights but they have the rudimentary elements of how to organize a relatively just and democratic society. They certainly included mechanisms to resolve disputes, in a manner where the accused and the accuser stated their case, received their judgement and, in some cases, appealed their judgement.
Weakness: this is an old law for a by-gone era. We are, after all, a nation-state and we should move foreward and not backward.
v. Religious Law: One of the most striking things in Eritrean politics is the emergence of religion as a liberating force (as opposed to something to be liberated from.) Whereas the 60s-80s generation was rebelling against the suffocating religious dogma of the generation before them, the 90-00 generation is rebelling against the oppressive godlessness of the generation now in power. Whereas the organizations and the individuals that emerged from the ELF (ELF, ELF-RC) and EPLF (PFDJ, EPLF-DP) are very reluctant to talk about God or religion, the newer generation is very comfortable about this subject and they see it as part and parcel of their whole identity. To them, what is wrong with Eritrea is quite simple: we have abandoned God, and therefore, and quite logically, God has abandoned us. PFDJ is ungodly. If we were to live our lives, and govern the nation in accordance with the laws of God, then He would smile upon us. This movement reminds one of the South American form of "liberation theology." If I am talking to a young person and he sprinkles his conversations with "feTari", "Allah", "Amlak" "Egziabher," "rebi," I instantly know that he is an opposition sympathisizer and feel relieved. If on the other hand, a young person tells me "grm", "koys" "werki", "temam," I know he is either apolitical or a diq zbele PFDJista.
Weakness: A religious movement doesnt know when to stop. A religious movement is, by definition, not inclusionary; it owes its being to an us vs them thinking.
vi. International Law: Another higher law is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the language of all civilized people. Instead of arguing as an Eritrean citizen, we can argue as a human being who is denied his/her human right--the right to life, liberty, worship, assemble, to self-government, to movement. The strength of this appeal is that it is universal-a right that is not subject to cultural or geographical refinements. It is a sort of religion, a humanist one. This works, but only to an extent. An Ethiopian prisoner of war who was captured in combat has more rights than an Eritrean citizen in prison. The reason is that the Ethiopian Prisoner of War has a spokesperson-the Geneva Convention-whereas the Eritrean citizen does not. A young Eritrean who was resettled from Sudan does not have to serve in the National Service for a year, a reprieve that is not available to the average Eritrean. The reason is that, at least for a year, the resettled refugee has the UNHCR to speak on his behalf. (Inconvenient little facts that our we-are-our-own-bosses-nobody-tells-us-how-to-run-our-country PFDJ braves forget whenever they try to dismiss calls for moderation from international agencies.)
Weaknesses: universal, it may be, but these rights are, unfortunately, considered not minimum goals but goals that nations should strive towards. They are enforced reluctantly and when an authoritarian government doesnt like them, all it has to do is expel the do-gooders (as Isaias did with UNHCR in 1995.) There is no uniform punishment for non-compliance. Even in the 21st century, the UN does include nations like China, Cuba, Burma, Gulf States, African states, to whom human rights is a relative concept, and one that is seen as a "Western" political tool to destabilize their nations. A few years ago, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights was chaired by Libya. Not to change the subject, but this is why I think that those who are waiting for the "international community" to compel Ethiopia to accept the ruling of the Boundary Commission are making a mistake. At the rate the "international community", the Eritrean border will not be demarcated for another ten years, particularly since the appeal for "international law" is coming from one of the most insolent when it comes to law, national or international. A direct face-to-face talk could shortcut the process considerably...But I have said enough on that subject.
Harnessing Higher Law
No doubt, there are many other higher law factors, which I have neglected to mention. My point is that these different approaches should not automatically be seen as threats, but opportunities for rallying opposition. And then, as leaders, the opposition heads should find ways to overcome the weaknesses of each Higher Law. The leaders of our opposition groups should see this development not as a threat but as a sign that the Eritrean body politic has developed beyond monolithic "nationalism" to articulate a diverse set of solutions to the prevailing lawlessness in our country. An opposition leader should see this development positively, that there is a diverse ready-and-willing constituency waiting to be led.
But these motivational drives, these "higher laws" have to be harnessed and managed. To do so, we need to create an environment conducive to debate and dialogue. I think what we need is an "Opposition Oath" of sorts, similar to a physicians Hippocratic oath-"Above All, Do No Harm." Those of us in the opposition should take an "opposition oath" not to belittle, denigrate, undermine the work of the other and to do all we can to address one another in a civil manner, befitting a compatriot and a member of the brotherhood/sisterhood, and to recognize that "the other" possses strengths we separately may not have, and to see one another as complementary but not competitive to one another. By no means should this oath be construed as a code of silence or creating another veil of secrecy. The oath is to change to tone, not the content.
What do I mean by complementary strengths? Some organizations, for example, have shown an impressive record of nurturing and safeguarding Eritrea's diversity; some organizations have shown an Eritrean First: forming an alliance of organizations that has now lasted for 5 years. Some have shown immense character and courage to actually walk away from power and prestige in exchange for aligning with the people. Some have shown how a small number of people have an immense impact. These are all strengths that should be commended and built on.
At some point, hopefully soon, a mechanism to harness and co-ordinate all these efforts will be organized by the opposition groups. The energy of the young, the knowledge of the old and the focus of the disiplined-all working towards one end, ending dictatorship in Eritrea. It matters little whether this is called a "National Convention" a "Constitutent Assembly" or a "Reconciliation Conference." What matters most is that representatives of all these viewpoints should meet, that the conference should be all-inclusive, that the participants should hash out a compromise and come out with a visionary document and a blueprint for change that can rally Eritreans, regardless of their viewpoint. That is a tall order, to be sure, but the Eritrean situation demands nothing less.
And how was the mob brought down in the United States? Did someone go in to the Kingpin and say, "Godfather, we have to shut you down because you did not follow your own rules; you whacked someone when you should only have cut off his finger? You are charging usurious interest rates and you are not honoring the labor rights of your prostitution rings? " Of course not. What happened is that, after many failed attempts, many agencies working in unison for years, under inspired leadership of the law enforcement agencies and using their Higher Law--the US Constitution and federal laws on income tax and racketeering to-- busted the mob for good. An organization which had been around forever and was threatening to be here forever was effectively destroyed. The point was tipped.
We are at the Tipping Point, a phase where small steps can yield immense results. We are either struggling for the sake of struggling or struggling to bring about change. If we are struggling for change, if we struggling to bust our mob, then there is no alternative other than the opposition coming together for a common purpose and concentrate on ridding Eritrea of its homegrown malady.
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
