"This letter is a call for correction, a call for peaceful and democratic dialogue, a call for strengthening and consolidation, a call for unity, a call for justice, through peaceful and legal ways and means."

An open letter to all members of the PFDJ

"Those who favor the peaceful way of resolving conflicts are always faced with similar questions and charges. How can one think about making a pact with an enemy? How can one seek a compromise with someone who should be punished for their crimes? And usually the answers given are similar. You have got to come to terms and seek a compromise with the enemy, precisely because he is an enemy. There is no need to negotiate with friends. What is the real choice here? Either a war, easy to provoke, and which can last permanently, or a difficult path towards peace based on compromise. But a compromise always leaves something to be desired. To be able to live peace and freedom, it is necessary to replace the language or war by the language of peace, and this was the attempt that Poland undertook ten years ago..."

Adam Michnik

It is extremely gratifying to witness the beginning of a bonafide debate on the critical question of strategy. This is a welcomed change and everything possible must be done to continue and expand the conversation.

It goes without saying that from the time I became convinced it was right to propose the "The Strategy of Negotiated Peaceful Revolution" I was aware of the possibility of a modest encouragement by those who are sick and tired of bloodshed in Eritrea, and a suggestion for more elaboration by those who want to know how this could be reconciled with Eritrean reality and the condemnation by the "experts" and disciples of armed struggle. It has all come to pass. I am thankful for those who see the need to make a paradigm shift in our method of struggle. I am willing to further expound on my proposal to those who are interested in further examining the possibility.

I recognize the right of every Eritreans to free speech and my understanding of the concept of "free expression" includes the right to use political labels and acidic castigations by the highly esteemed and seasoned proponents of violence as a means of internal conflicts resolution. One cannot be a truly democratic individual without affirming the fundamental right of those who are ready to politically lynch him for political heresy should they come to power by sacrificing another 50,000 or 70,000 Eritreans to prove democracy can come out of the barrel of a gun. This is the very reason why we need the Bill of Rights in general, and a clearly defined First Amendment to protect the written and spoken words that may be considered unacceptable by the majority of the citizens, authorities in power and the government.

Those who cannot see the possibility of a peaceful resolution to the national conflict have the responsibility to come down from their ideological and sectarian political ivory tower and clearly elucidate their thesis and make an effort to convince the people that armed struggle or insurrectionary uprising is the best way. Acceptance by demand, bullying, declaration and slogan has been the signature of Stalin and all his ideological descendents. They are always willing to fight to the last peasant and worker to seize power or retain power. They put ideological purity above life. Throwing political tantrums and all sorts of self-serving sophomoric diatribes are no substitute for a line-by-line refutation why the peaceful method will not work in Eritrea. I kindly ask them to make an honest intellectual effort and try convincing us with the strength and clarity of their idea and its applicability to the present Eritrean reality.

At this critical time in the overall political debate, no other discussion and discourse is more important than the subject of exit strategy. A qualitative shift in the direction of the discourse is imperative if we are not to get stuck on regurgitating ossified organizational mantras-or worst yet, be relegated to the full-time task of chronicling the litany of mistakes and abuses by the government. Most Eritreans have come to clearly recognize and accept the fact that the present government does not represent their basic value and interest. Telling us that the regime in Eritrea is undemocratic is not the mark of political sophistication at the time when the majority of citizens have come to the same conclusion on the basis of their daily experience. The majority of Eritreans knows the present regime has to go without compromising the interest of The State of Eritrea. HOW? is the cardinal question. The answer to this question will be a major factor in clearly defining the political alignments and realignments that are underway. Until we systematically address and resolve this fundamental question, all efforts-no matter how heroic and noble-will amount to an exercise in futility.

Ultimately, we all have to recognize that without vision, strategy, level-headed leadership and appreciation of the practical give and take of the day to day struggle nothing meaningful and lasting can transpire by the way of solving our national crisis. There is nothing new about crisis by definition for it is an integral part of human existence. It is our interpretation, appreciation and perceived solutions to the problem that we have to worry about and pay attention to. National crisis demands a corresponding national vision and strategy to untangle and solve. All internal problems have to be peacefully negotiated and resolved within the context of a unified and sovereign Eritrea. Anything short of national vision will just be that: short and unproductive and in some cases totally counterproductive. We have written millions of words in explaining our definition of what the national crisis is. Our anger, disappointment, concern and worries were interweaved in our elaboration of the magnitude of the crisis. This was and still is a natural and necessary part of the process. As we slowly proceed into formulating a Unifying Vision and Exit Strategy nothing is more important than having the capacity to not be blinded by our deeply felt disappointments, personal biases and organizational loyalty. We should expand our capacity for tolerance (for difference in ideas and perspectives not for oppression and abuse) and for trying to see issues from the other person's perspective and trying to accommodate others' interest in the process of strategizing a visionary solution to our national predicament. We cannot achieve this without some serious debate on matters of principle and strategy.

It is my unflinching belief that within a reasonable time we will arrive at a unifying umbrella strategy if we stay fully engaged in the dialogues. We should also recognize that the growing and ever expanding new culture of dialogue with all its shortcomings is a part of the national transformation in the making. No transformation, individual as well as collective, is easy. If it was, the level of our pain and anger would have melted away by now. The Herculean task of transforming oneself while trying to contribute to a fundamental national transformation is a daunting experience. It is also self-liberating for it allows one the permission to express strongly held views without any reservation and in a straightforward manner.

The Beauty of Creative Chaos Versus Sterile Conformity: Liberty vs. Slavery.

We are emerging from an oppressive environment that had seriously stifled meaningful intellectual discourse and alternative thinking for a long time. Sanctioned and predigested "ideas" were bottle fed not only to the trusting Hafash but also to the best and the brightest of our nation. The damage was universal. We had become a nation run on high-octane slogans. We had learned to doubt our basic instincts and experiences. It had penetrated all fabrics of our society. Each of us were victims and at the same time contributors to various degrees. When we get mad at the ruling elite, we should also reserve with all honesty a share of the blame for ourselves or else we will fall into the trap of always blaming others; or else it will blind us as unbridled arrogance has blinded the elites running Eritrea. We had become a nation of order takers and blind followers. We had given up our right to demand all political organizations explain their political philosophy and account for their actions. We had elevated a tyrant to a semi-god with unparalleled power to arrest individuals and wage war at will without regard to the consequence of his decision. We had given up our right to push the opposition to go beyond blaming and exposing the authoritarian government's criminal activities and be willing to engage in serious discourse on the very nature of their solution (strategy). If this was not a national dislocation in thinking, what is? If this was not a grand political failure, what is? In our attempt to get out of this failure and dislocation if thousands of strategies are proposed, so what? If thousands of roadmaps are suggested, so what? We should be thankful something is at least being brought to the table�. Some effort is being made�effort, yes all sorts of effort by citizens trying to find a way out of this nightmare. We are learning to walk and stand tall. We are learning to think independently and propose different ideas without asking the approval of his Highness and the Central Committee in Diaspora. This is liberation with all its positive and negative implications. This is the wonderful world of liberty where free choices are made, risks are taken and mistakes with their consequences are harvested and the necessary adjustments are made. Going out on the limb and putting out fresh ideas has never been an easy undertaking leave alone in times a devastating national crisis even in tranquil times. As clumsy as we may sound and look at times, it is our own clumsiness and we must treasure it and keep on moving forward. A future designed by our independent decisions and effort will always be better than a hell under the control of an unrepentant tyrant or a heaven promised by the exponents and experts of armed struggle.

We will do ourselves justice by putting things in perspective. Observe how pathetic and pitiful the ruling elite's camp looks and sounds. Sterile and desolate, no imagination and no creativity. Their argument is predictable and patented. They read and write from the same script. Not even those close to the almighty articulate anything fresh and original. The higher you go in the political ladder the more unoriginal the idea. A classic example of totalitarian culture: no diversity in essence and most of the time in form as well. Monotony trickled down throughout the system. The black hole of individuality, diversity and creativity. No wonder nothing meaningful and thought provoking has come from their camp in recent memory. The prisoners of democratic centralism cannot propose new strategies and fresh approaches to new challenges. They have to reclaim themselves before they can exhibit any originality. The camp of the opposition with all its chaos, subdivisions and even some anachronistic ideological residue is a very fertile ground. A hundred flowers opening up in our national spring and thousands of pens and pencils in free citizen's hands-some writing poems, some short stories and others' eloquent political prose-but all writing with passion and conviction as a testimonial that Eritrea is being reborn in thousands of ways each minute, each hour and each day. Can one hope for anything better than what we are witnessing and participating in at the same time? No not really, only that this self-discovery and reclamation be continued unabated.

The Practical Side Of Our Responsibility: Formulating A Strategy To Get From Point A To Point D.

In this highly evolving and ever complicated national drama it goes without saying that the practical side of our responsibility demands that we come up with a workable strategy to transform the dangerous national political crisis before it is too late. It is incumbent upon us to clearly recognize that our daily tit-for-tat with the ruling elite and its propaganda department is a part of the political drama and a necessary part at that, but not a basis for strategy formation. Polemics is one thing; strategizing is another. Strategy does not emanate from a simplistic "us versus them" paradigm. Strategies cannot be a vehicle of anger management no matter how justified the anger is. Stating that all those who oppose the dictator should be under one magical united front and everything will work out is not the definition of a strategy. It is a simplistic formula that has nothing to do with the complicated nature of formulating a visionary strategy and an organizational structure to actualize the strategy. It is often said that hatred or love should not be the basis of policy formation. How profoundly right this observation is. In my way of thinking the same goes for strategy formation. National crisis by definition demands that we start by asking what is good for the nation? What is the best way to exit out of this national crisis with the minimum damage to the national interest, the citizens and the contending interest groups? How do we go about crafting a working formula for interest groups to voluntarily relegate and compromise their interest for the sake of the bigger agenda: National Survival or National Salvation.

What assurances and safeguards are made to make sure powerful groups do not impose their hegemony by the virtue of their strength and not acceptability of their ideas? Achieving this desired balance between national agenda and the specific interest of groups and individual citizens is the territory where the art of great leadership or the incapacitating limits of small-minded individual egos are exhibited. We will have ample opportunity to witness both extreme behaviors within the process of the unfolding debate. The inertia and resistance from every corner should not surprise us as we collectively navigate and negotiate through this extraordinarily difficult historical period. No specific group can claim purity of purpose and leadership under the circumstances. Any attempt to that effect is a cause for concern and a warning to keep our radars wide open.

Political Program Is Not a National Strategy: Let Us Not Confuse The Tree For The Forest.

The first thing to recognize is that the explicit or implicit political programs of a political group does not equal to a national strategy. The program's specific intent could be ideology, political or religious driven. It is a general statement giving the citizens an insight into what a party will try to accomplish with resources of the nation if it was given a mandate to lead the nation for a limited period of time. Those who start and end all political discussions or analysis from the perspective of their specific political program impose a limitation on themselves and on the national politics to a certain extent by boxing in themselves and the free flow of ideas, thus diminishing the possibility of interacting with citizens of different political persuasions.

The opposite end of the political reality is represented by organizationally unaffiliated political individuals who consider themselves independent and may have all sorts of ideas but do not have the necessary organizational vehicle to implement their ideas. They treasure their freedom and revolt against all forms of organizational tyranny. Most of them having survived a bitterly disappointing experience with old political organizations have developed a healthy distrust and at times a deep hatred for organizations and organized politics. In times of great national crisis their number increases. Emerging from a political culture that had no tolerance for independent thinking individuals, and everything was based on a simplistic and destructive "if you are not with us you are against us" political environment, it is no surprise if thousands manifest this political trend. The irony is that the independent individuals at one point in their transition to non-affiliated politics realize the independent sector need to organize, thus the emergence of "organized independents" with political agenda and organization, conferences and seminars. A different kind of organization nevertheless a political organization. This is not as oxymoronic as it looks. It is another aspect of the political transformation and a necessary part of the change that need to be taken into account in our grand effort to make sense of everything.

The definition and responsibility the "organized independents" assign themselves is important and a legitimate subject for scrutiny and healthy criticism when necessary. The preface independent does not have an automatic exemption or special privilege in the context of the national debate but only in the recognition of the right of individual Eritreans to organize or unorganized themselves in whatever format they choose to. If the organized independents' very existence is to register its complete lack of confidence in the existing political organization as a political statement it has legitimacy. If the organized independents try to assume a monopoly of political interpretation and adopt the attitude that it is the solution for all organizational crises, the attitude has to be challenged. It has the freedom to criticize as well as expose the bankruptcy of any political agenda, this comes with the right of self-expression, but the effort to categorize other organizations as having no place in Eritrean politics is failing to learn from history. The privilege of accepting or denying a political group is left for the people of Eritrea. The archaic concept of a vanguard party, even in its mildest form, should not be tolerated. No political group has the right of excluding others based on its own interpretation of right and wrong or what is good for Eritrea and its citizens. This privilege and right is reserved for the Eritrean people.

Why A Strategy Of Negotiated Peaceful Revolution?

It is obvious that much is happening in our national politics and we are trying to make sense of it in our particular ways. We are engaged in a lengthy process and it will be a while before a clear sense of direction is charted. In the meantime, the great exchange of ideas on possible solutions should continue full-blown. It is with this understanding and firm belief that I made the modest proposal "A Strategy of Negotiated Peaceful Revolution" on 09-03-02. This is not a fresh idea in the world of politics. I have taken as many factors as possible into account before I became convinced that this strategy would best serve as a better alternative for a way out of our national predicament. When suggesting this strategy I did not have the slightest illusion about the nature and character of the political elites that are misgoverning Eritrea. I am well aware of the magnitude and depth of political irrationality that is being exhibited at the highest level of the national leadership. I clearly recognize that the ruling clique will not willingly cooperate in the peaceful transformation of the national crisis. It will not come to its senses until it is made to see the futility of its efforts. All dictators who came to the table were "forced" to come to their senses. I have no misgivings that the present authoritarian rulers will not experience a political equivalent of the Road to Damascus conversion. The logic of my proposal is based on my infinite belief that the opposition side will sooner or later come to its senses and evolve into a formidable political force that can make it impossible for the tyrant to govern in his present ways and induce the necessary national transformation. More fundamental than that, it is because I recognize the reality that the Eritrean people are slowly emerging as a true motivating force of the national politics. This strong undercurrent soon will start manifesting its political will in open defiance of the authoritarian control. Whether we have the skill, temper and political genius to correctly organize and guide a vast social movement for democracy will be tested in the near future.

There are issues that cannot be skirted by the opposition in the process of formulating an end game strategy: It has to make some strategic choices. The left, the right and the center, and in short, all opposition has to face its responsibility by choosing a clear path of struggle: Destruction through the so-called revolutionary civil war or transformation through peaceful resistance. I have made my choice both as an ordinary human being and as a political individual. The peaceful way, with all its limitations, makes sense as a political path to democracy and rule of law. I do not buy into the belief that the regime will make peaceful change impossible. It will have no choice if we change the balance of forces in a peaceful and systematic manner. I do not struggle to change the will of the oppressive clique. Nor do I have any illusions about the stagnating segment of the opposition that is so determined to save us from tyranny with guts, guns, blood and glory. It is in spite of and because of these stumbling blocks that I propose the campaign of sustained peaceful r�sistance to actualize a negotiated revolution. My proposal is grounded on a strong belief that a massive citizens participation and intervention in the political process coupled with a highly organized and focused non-violent effort by the organized oppositions and growing civic societies will in due course strategically alter the balance of forces and induce a negotiated peaceful transformation of Eritrea into a democratic nation. This strategic approach is dramatically opposed to the prevailing dominant political pedagogy. I had expected a strong resistance from the entrenched ideologues of violence (the extreme left and right) of the political spectrum balanced by a reasonable skepticism from the political center. I am convinced as the political crisis deepens and widens more citizens will come to recognize the futility and bankruptcy of the non-peaceful approach to national conflict resolution. Vested politicians may think of peace as an end result but the people who are supposed to give their children to conduct the politicians' civil war know peace is a way of doing the right thing.

Our agenda should start and end with what is good for the nation and the people. It must be about mobilizing the people: the ultimate arbiters of Eritrean history. Let us stop looking for a short cut. Nothing can stop the will of the people once organized and galvanized. We must have faith in citizens finally taking control of the political process and making history. We have to work hard and struggle with sincerity to mobilize the will of the people and focus their will into a formidable organization or organizations and break the hold of the power hungry clique by making the nation ungovernable and forcing the tyrant or whomever the ruling party sends to the table, thus making a less destructive transition possible. We are not preparing to beg or wait with our arms folded for events to favor us. What we are asked to do is wage a peaceful political and social mobilization at a local and national level. If this makes some ideologically entrenched political proponents of armed struggle uncomfortable to a point of equating the call for a peaceful strategy with apology it only underscores the depth of their fixation with the Kalashnikov. In the meantime, I want to assure the apostles of civil war and armed insurrection the days of unchallenged acceptance is over. The days of authoritarian tyrants and revolutionary messiahs are equally over. Learn to compete in the market of ideas and explain to us the helpless masses the viability and indispensability of your liberation agenda.

A Draconian Choice: A second Civil War Or A Colonels' Coup d'etat

The alternative to a peacefully negotiated revolution, whether it is intentionally unarticulated or camouflaged under the debris of the day to day propaganda and agitation, can be summarized as follows:

• The "liberators" marching to Asmara from Addis, Khartoum or a liberated territory inside Eritrea.
• Hoping for a palace coup d'etat.
• Anticipating insurrection by a segment of the EDF.
• The extreme version is to assume that this problem is a one man and it will be easily solved if the root cause was exiled or some how taken care of.

Each scenario has its theoretical and political justification with all the necessary footnotes and manuvering loopholes. Taken in totality this is the strategy of seizer of power and not fundamental transformation of a nation and society. It is the concept of force meeting force. Is this our version of a just war against an unjust government? Not a colonizer but one segment of Eritrean waging war on the other segment to seize power on behalf of the people. How many thousands have to die to achieve this? Of course this has to be done before the old generation retires. The flow of history held hostage and accountable to political leaders wish on both sides of the aisle: on the tyrant side and on the opposition's side. The citizens are to be passive participants in their fate. We are all to partake in this farce called the dance of death. My choice of strategy is against all this madness. It is a strategy of hope and possibilities. I am not living in Disneyland nor did I just drop by from the land of Pollyanna. Ask most politicians about what method or strategy they will use to change the political situation in Eritrea you will not get a categorical answer. What comes through is all sorts of hedging, equivocating and semantic ballet. Let us not forget the most celebrated excuse of all times, the outdated political justification and the self-serving rational, the frequently recycled excuse: The only thing African dictators respect and understand is force. A ready-made excuse for all who want to justify and rationalize the use of naked force as a short cut to power. It becomes doubly oppressive and offensive when civilians living in the comfort zone of the Diaspora utter it. The irony is that those who best understood the use of violence but chose to challenge the regime in a peaceful and legal way emerged inside the nation and within the womb of the ruling party. Old warriors opting for a peaceful path and in their own way planted the seeds of peace. At the other end we have some aging revolutionaries not ready to give up on an armed showdown. A classic evidence of irony and role reversal.

Those who want to march from the neighboring countries to Asmara and overthrow the tyrant cannot guarantee us that they are saints in human flesh. Nor can we be sure how much compromising has been done with the host governments to "advance" the national agenda as well as their own group interest. East African politics is full of subterfuge manuvering and unhealthy political bargains. The perfection of the tactical arsenal "my enemy's enemy is my friend" is a Horn of Africa's infamous achievement. There are deals and there are deals; often the ink is not dry when the next betrayal and counter deal is incubated. The history of twisted cross-border alliances and counter-alliances in Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan and Eritrean is full of destructive machinations and back stubbing. Through it all violence begets violence; blood flows; life is trashed and devalued. This vicious circle of death and destruction coupled with poverty and AIDs is decimating the productive labor force. The ever-increasing defense expenditure is swallowing up the meager resources of the region. Eritrea as a new nation with limited manpower and resources cannot afford to be enmeshed in self-consuming and violent internal struggle.

All deals and counter deals are made behind the back of the citizen without any accountability to the long-range consequence. Transparency is the vocabulary dusted off when leaders face donor nations and the World Bank; it does not compute in the tactical alliances and counter alliances and arrangement when underground deals are made to stay in power or come to power at the cost of the people's fundamental interest: Constitutional governance, rule of law and Democracy. History is fresh enough that we do not need to go to the archive section to find lessons. Today's allies are tomorrow's mortal enemies. The Byzantine world of intrigues and shifting tactical alliance may be the choice of power starved political connoisseurs, but I doubt if the ordinary citizen believes it is in his or her interest.

Those who do not learn from history �you know the rest. Just look at the still fresh spiritual and political wound that is open when the conversation is about the tragic civil war and the unholy alliances that made it happen. Let us stop the political rationalization and justification and think out of the box before we condemn another generation to a domestic rendition of a senseless war. It is the right of Eritrea politicians and their respective organizations to map out their organization's strategy, agenda, create blocks and united fronts. No one with a firm belief in democracy can advocate restricting their fundamental right to formulate their plan. It is the exorbitant cost (measured in lives and natural resources) of implementing their agenda that force one to look for an alternative strategy that puts human life it at the center of the political deliberation.

History has shown that the petty bourgeois is an "impatient liberator." He lacks the wisdom and patience of the rural peasant. He tends to measure time in terms of a to-do list with sequential steps and actions that is to happen in his political lifetime, neat and clean. He tries to expedite history and make it march to a digital stopwatch. In his struggle to come to power, for the impatient liberator, life is just another currency that can be traded and dispensed with to vindicate the purity of his crisp and precise ideology and to advance his political agendas. He is willing to accept the "dialectical transformation" of a former non-Eritrean mortal enemy and form a working relationship based on his narrow need-but not willing to even entertain theoretically the possibility that under a the massive civilian uprising and the pressure of civil disobedience the Eritrean ruling party could be forced to transform itself and accept the peaceful removal of the present ruling clique. To the romantic liberator this is heresy. It upsets his plan for glory. It is not as direct and vivid as a war. He has to see the enemy punished. In his world, larger than life heroes can only come out of epic wars and showdowns. The tedious diplomatic and political work that is needed to transform an enemy to an adversary and eventually to a possible partner in peaceful transformation is unthinkable. Mobilaizing a massive social movement is not as easy as simplistic as: two times two is four. It demands acquiring a special kind of skill. It starts by recognizing politics as an art and diplomacy with all its nuances as an abstract art. He is so focused on settling accounts with the power-hungry clique at the top of the state machinery he forgets it is the people who always have to pay the price. He has no qualms about demanding the war between neighboring nations be settled in a peaceful way. But he cannot extend his understanding of the peaceful way to a domestic crisis. Charity still begins at home. Peace also begins at home.

He was once upon a time schooled in the immutable rules of political change: Revolution means total destruction of the ruling enemy and everything associated with it and the building of a new just society with revolutionary vanguard at the helm. You know the unvarnished version of this credo as: you have to break an egg to make an omelet. Poor Hafash! A voiceless egg sandwiched between a ruthless tyrant and evangelical liberators. Stuck in time, the liberator clings to his outdated lessons and refuses to see the world transforming all around him. It is against this piranha ideology, life sacrificing and everything must be at the mercy of the revolution political thinking that the alternative Negotiated Peaceful Revolution was suggested.

The excessive militarization of the Eritrean mind and political thinking is one of the unexpected negative results of the struggle for independence. Conflict resolution through armed struggle and insurrection has become so pervasive in our national psyche it is time to reverse the trend and direction. External and internal conflicts have been addressed equally with the same methods of resolution: Organized violence. Add to this the concept of there can only be a space for one movement, one party and one all-knowing national leader, it is easy to see how we got to where we are now. The need for a peaceful strategy is based on recognizing this grotesque reality and making an honest attempt to challenge this spiritual deformity and political absurdity that is sapping the vital energy of our society. It is philosophically grounded on a non-violent path to transformation and politically based on recognizing that not a single Eritrean life must be sacrificed to correct what is wrong with our governance and other societal issues that we have not squarely faced yet. We cannot be asking and working for national reconciliation without abandoning the entire rhetoric and contingent plan for civil war.

For those who are hoping that the Eritrean Defense Forces take control of things and reverse and correct the political crisis, one has to ask what will happen if the army becomes divided into factions and fights among itself? If it took a minimum of about ten years for the most informed upper echelon of the ruling party to emerge as G-15, how long will it take for a very divided army to realize things should change? With what political agenda? Is it in the interest of Eritrea to further politicize a ruling
party-controlled army into a faction-controlled divided army? What guarantee do we have that a power hungry junta or another power addicted individual strong man will not take matters into his hand and further complicate our struggle for democracy and constitutional governance? What will this do to the fragile sovereignty and territorial integrity of the nation? Is this the right path to a total and fundamental transformation of a nation towards a stable and prospers democracy or a stopgap solution born out of frustration with the ugly reality? Is this the political manifestation of whishing and hoping that things could not be worse than they are now? Was it not due to the recognition of these potential dangers that G-15 opted for a peaceful path of resolving the national crisis? Why did G-13 resort to writing a letter? Why did the elderly Eritreans want to mediate? What has changed now? Our level of frustration or the fundamental nature and definition of the problems we are facing? Whose basic agenda will be served by insurrection or a violent palace coup d'etat? The interest of the overall citizens or of the organized political factions? The issue is how do we avoid all this unpredictability fraught with potential disaster and work for a better and lasting way of solving our complicated national crisis?

The issue of Eritrea's transition to democracy is not only confined to the practical issue of removing the illegal and destructive authoritarian presidency of Isaias Afewrki and the ruling elite in power. It is about peacefully and systematically dismantling the entire authoritarian's politico-socio-economic order without opening up the country to attack, political blackmail or external hegemony in the process. This is a huge undertaking. Revolutionary bravado or narcissistic resignation will not help facilitate this massive challenge. Our vision and strategy can be far apart and at times may even look unbridgeable and irreconcilable. More reason for us to do our best to keep the discourse and conversation going on.

In our deliberation of how we can resolve our national crisis the following points have to be taken into account:

• The period where all the solutions came top down from the organized sector's leadership alone is over and done with.
• It is time to shift our focus from a political power paradigm to totally renegotiating a citizen-based national covenant that will honestly address our people's fundamental problems and not only the residual headaches of the civil war.
• We must differentiate between getting rid of an authoritarian regime and protecting the overall interest of the new state. We should go further than that and recognize that we do not have a monopoly of concern over the destiny of the nations. It is wise to assume that there are Eritreans within the regime that do not agree with the decisions and actions of the ruling clique.
• We should avoid treating the ruling party as a homogeneous organization. Especially since the emergence of G-15 clearly demonstrated that long perceived unanimity is shattered and the tremor of the division is still increasing in intensity and magnitude. The critical and decisive political partner for peaceful transformation can only come out of the ruling party. Failing to grasp this salient point is failing to grasp what has transpired in the last decade and half in the politics of bloodless revolution.
• We should work for the removal of the present clique that is in total control of the political power. We have no right to demand the total destruction of the ruling party. We should call for its transformation into a democratic political entity. We should do everything possible to assist the democratic forces within the party to get control of the party apparatus and ultimately total leadership.
• We should call for the recognition and legalization of all political forces as a part of our day-to-day political work.
• If all the talk and effort about convening a "national" conference is to bring all the Diaspora oppositions together under a working umbrella in order to face the ruling regime in a coordinated manner it is politically acceptable. But if the conference is to be automatically equated with national reconciliation it will be a distortion and misuse of the concept of NATIONAL RECONCILIATION.
• All the talk about a massive organized conference with a magic solution to what is ailing the opposition and the nation is unrealistic and dangerous. No one can guarantee the result of a conference with a mile-long agenda. Confidence building sub-conferences on regional and local level have to take place before we tackle the mother of all conferences.
• It will be advisable to have a "pre-national" conference gathering that will first of all clearly identify and itemize the critical points of unity and difference within the opposition camp. Consolidate the points of unity and define a method, procedure for narrowing down the differences and formulate a working agenda for the conference (A good example is the on-going project known as The Citizen's Approach.)
• All talk of rapprochement (between the government and the aggregate opposition) is premature. Rapprochement between a disunited opposition and unreformed regime and ruling party will be a futile endeavor. We have to create the necessary conditions for strategic stalemate before we can harvest the benefits of any rapprochement. As to floating the idea of creating a possible caretaker government, government in exile or the framework of a possible transitional government, (call it what you may want to call it) it boils down to setting up some form of a parallel quasi government on behalf of the Eritrea people. (The legal and diplomatic implication of it is so profound it will be wise to tackle this issue in a separate presentation). Suffice it to say at this stage in the struggle the objective reality does not support the call for rapprochement and some form of "government" in exile.
• All efforts for reconciliation will not be truly national and lasting until and unless we clearly recognize that without a corresponding national political force from within the country, the ruling party and a cross section of the Eritrean society, as a future partner at the table and beyond, it will not bring the true national salvation we are hoping and working for. National reconciliation by definition has to be all encompassing or else in spite of all the genuine effort it will be a tactical manuvering by the opposition to position itself to seize power on the grave of the ruling party.
• Consolidating and strengthening the growing civil society will contribute to all positive efforts: national discourse, conference and national reconciliation and salvation.
• The underlining principle of reconciliation is a departure from the win-loss paradigm to a win-win paradigm. Political groups that are proponents of zero- sum political games cannot with all honesty, be strategically committed to national reconciliation.

My proposed strategy has three clearly defined and integrated parts:

It works for a negotiated solution which requires that every political group be ready to give up something to get to the table to jointly draft a mutually binding national covenant for the transformation of the Eritrean polity. Negotiation to resolve a national crisis of this magnitude will have its own protocol and tactics, which has to be worked out in the process. It will be a complicated and difficult negotiation but it will be infinitely better than a second civil war.

It clearly chooses a peaceful path as method of solution. For almost a half-century the people of Eritrean have gone through an intense and protracted political and armed struggle. The war of independence and the fraternal war between EPLF and ELF had consumed the lives of thousands of Eritreans. The senseless Bademe war had taken the lives of 19,000 Eritreans (conservative estimate). This young nation and its war weary citizens do not deserve to go through more war and dislocation. It is unconscionable and unpardonable to contemplate (even in the theoretical sense) another civil war in whatever shape and form-protracted armed struggle, armed insurrection or bloody coup-
to resolve our internal problem. We cannot speak of national reconciliation and economic development by preparing to compound and exasperate the nation's deep wounds and economic backwardness. The peaceful way does not mean passivity and submission to tyranny. It means the freedom to fully challenge the authoritarian regime morally, legally, politically and diplomatically. It means putting the diabolical decisions and actions of government in front of the public eye. It means trusting the citizens to stand up and defend their interest and be the masters of their lives. It is about unleashing a vast social movement to fundamentally and strategically transform the nation.

It is also a call for a revolution. It means an agreed upon dismantling of the authoritarian system within a defined time framework. In its place lay the foundation where Eritrea's diversity is celebrated and treasured; each individual citizen is protected by the constitution and rules of law. This revolution has to put the nation and the citizen first, constitutional governance and rule of law second. Democracy and liberty third. Civil Society fourth. Political parties, fronts and movements fifth.

What is the alternative? Let the proponents of violent change explain to the citizens why and how their strategy will work for Eritrea.