|
Eritrea is now at a point where its survival has been placed in extreme danger: (1) Due to the war with Ethiopia, 25% of its own land, including its more fertile areas, is off limits to 100% of its citizens; (2) Due to the mismanagement of the post-war political developments, 100% of the land is off limits to an unknown percentage of Eritrea’s own citizens, many of whom sacrificed youth and limb to liberate the same land; (3) Due to the stubborn policies of its government, the Eritrean people find themselves in total isolation, with the world reluctant to even offer basic assistance for fear that the government would direct it towards war; (4) economically, the nation is in shambles, with close to 70% of the citizens relying on foreign aid for sustenance; basic necessities becoming scarce or unaffordable; and remittances from abroad being the only sources of hard currency; and (5) Socially, the nation finds itself in a situation where its most productive members—its youth-- are trapped in a Hobbesian choice of open-ended military service (where death and disability are random) or high-risk escape to foreign lands (where shoot-on-sight orders and deportation are the rule.) Thousands have made this choice and escaped to the neighboring countries where they are stranded.
If there is one thing that the state of Eritrea is crying out for, it is change. And if there is one thing that all the political actors in Eritrea share—government and the opposition--it is their aversion to change.
Faced with all these challenges, the response of the government and its dwindling supporters is: “stay the course.” Even if “the course” is the same one that has mired the nation in a state of war (declared and undeclared) for most of its existence; even if the course results in a permanence of enmity with neighboring nations; even if the course results in isolation from the international community; even if the course results in cynicism, hopelessness, pain, and agony of the people, the government insists on staying the course: no change. There would be no policy changes, institutional changes and, as President Isaias Afwerki told an interviewer recently, certainly no change of the Head of State for “as long as I live.” In short, the government promises more of the same for as long as is foreseeable.
The alternative, then, is the Eritrean opposition. The Neo-Detente
Collectively, the Eritrean opposition unanimously agrees that there should be change in Eritrea. That is the good news. The bad news is that the Eritrean opposition groups, individually, insist that there should be no change to the way they are running their operation. They meet, they evaluate, and then they congratulate themselves for making progress and for being on the right course. And what is their measure that they are on the right course? Is it an increase in their membership? Is it increase in the donation to their organizations? They are not saying. We are being asked to believe that activity—meetings, travel and more meetings—are an indication of a vibrant organization. Consequently, the Eritrean opposition movement is racing — but moving nowhere fast.
The Exaggerated Fissures
Although each organization has paid tribute (lip service?) to the importance of convergence and coordinating strategies towards joint efforts, no organization has taken a tangible step that is worth reporting. Far from it; in fact, the trend now is to find reasons for why Eritreans should be content to accept a neo-détente--until such time… perhaps until each organization gains the upper hand. In this "neo-detente", the opposition groups will not attack one another, but they will make no effort to form a union or a united front. A state of a cold war. Of course, things are never presented that crudely. Instead, sophisticated-sounding explanations are presented to delay any meaningful work towards convergence. Here are some of the common ones:
- Democrats vs Non-democrats: Here, “Democrats” does not refer to a group of people who believe in the supremacy of the people or the values associated with democracy: i.e., transparency, accountability, free and fair elections. Rather, "democrats" simply means advocates of “peaceful” change. We are told that a “democrat” believes in peaceful change; a “non-democrat” does not rule out violent change. Those are the only distinctions that matter to some people. Question: if the majority of the people decide (in a transparent manner) that they have the right to resist tyranny by all legitimate means of self-defense but a minority of the people decide (secretly and via decrees) that change can only be brought about peacefully, which organization can be said to be democratic and which one is non-democratic?
- Sovereign vs Dependent: We are told that the Eritrean political landscape is now divided between those who are willing to compromise Eritrean sovereignty by allowing foreigners (particularly Ethiopia) to dictate the terms of our governance and those who are principled opponents of this intrusion. We are never given evidence against those who are allegedly willing to compromise Eritrean sovereignty. Instead, we are given some key phrases and instructed to infer malice from them. The phrases are “Gondar”, “Addis Abeba,” “final and binding” “boundary commission.” Having an office in Addis Abeba, meeting with Ethiopian government officials openly, infrequent mentions of “final and binding” or condemnation of Ethiopia for refusing to comply with the ruling of the boundary commission are then shown as “evidence” that “the other” is willing to compromise Eritrean sovereignty. On the other hand, having secret meetings with European and American NGOs and GO’s is not a violation of Eritrean sovereignty but advancing democracy and human rights in Eritrea.
- Secular vs Sectarian: We are told that there are Eritreans who are secular (who believe in the separation of the church and state) and that anyone who even dares question the viability of secularism in a traditional society like Eritrea wants to replicate an Afghanistan in Western Eritrea and is thus a danger to democratic Eritrea. Conversely, we are told that anyone who voices skepticism about religious-based organizations’ commitment to democratic principles is violating the democratic rights of the religious. These two artificial "wedge issues" are then used as an explanation why two organizations must stay at arm's length from one another.
It is hard to escape the conclusion that emphasis on all these differences is driven less by national interest and more by the parties’ organizational goals of consolidating their power and creating themselves a niche for supremacy. These tactics of “stopping the clock” not only slow down the momentum for change and inclusion but also encourage others to find ever more reasons for creating exclusive clubs. The go-slow approach of some of the opposition groups (a friend calls it their “Ten Year Plan”) has opened the floodgates for some of the more nakedly ambitious political hucksters whose ambition exceeds their modest organizational skills to jump into the fray with their own version of political programs. Two are worthy of special mention. One is the nascent nativist movement, which has found its own tool of sifting Eritreans into the indigenous vs transplants. The transplants, we are told, are responsible for all that ails Eritrea and it is only when the “indigenous and authentic Eritreans rule that Eritrea will regain itself." Another equally unseemly movement is the local version of “Manifest Destiny” made up of those who believe that a power no less than God Himself has endowed their ethnic group with special powers to permanently broker peace and prosperity in the Horn of Africa.
How are the conventional political parties responsible for the emergence of these off-shoot and marginal groups? Simple. We believe that (a) the endless splintering of the conventional political parties as well as (b) their attempt not to correct but to actually present shrinking as a normal political development and, (c) their unconditional acceptance of one-man and two-man groups as political parties commanding followers (and thus worthy of being treated seriously) debases and trivializes the term “political party.” It removes all threshholds for credibility. This unconditional “acceptance” of the one-man and two-man groups places no incentive on these tiny groups to demonstrate that they have a constituency: it places no pressure on them to moderate their views or to seek out partnerships with other like-minded groups. This is the neo-detente that Eritreans are being asked to accept: Shrinking is natural; fragmentation is ok; size does not matter; and any two pen-pals can call themselves a political party.
A Proposal For A Modest Change
Each of the opposition groups has publicly stated that Eritrea is in the midst of a severe crisis that requires immediate attention. Regretfully, none of the opposition groups is behaving in a manner that gives citizens confidence that they believe what they say and they are actually acting on their beliefs. What Eritrea deserves is an immediate convention of all these political organizations (at least the ones that have demonstrated that they have followers) and an agreement on a common strategy to rid Eritrea of the scourge of PFDJ. Not talking about talking about it, but actually doing it. We believe that the peaceful/violent, democrat/traditional, sovereign/dependent, secular/sectarian labels are all surmountable challenges and a formula can be found to work through them. However, our assessment of the Eritrean organizations (and their current leadership) leads us to believe that this is not even a remote possibility. Thus, our modest proposal: organizations who have similar beliefs and outlooks should convene to chart a common strategy. Groups that have not demonstrated that they have any constituency should be treated just as groups—worthy of having dialogues with and invitation to meetings and even interesting conversations in a lobby somewhere—but they are not political parties representing any Eritrean except themselves. Eritrea may not be fortunate enough to have one unified opposition bloc facing the regime; but Eritrea certainly does not deserve twenty tiny political organizations circling their orbits and telling us to accept this as our fate or, worse, giving the people a false promise that they are on the verge of working together.
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
|
