Indeed, what is to be done? I will not bore the reader with a discussion on the socialist theory, the dead or dying Leninist-Marxist theory, of its dialectical or historical materialism. But, it was V. I. Lenin, the father of world socialism/communism who, when faced with a crisis and a dilemma, wrote a blue print for struggle for his contemporaries against critics and revisionists of the time using that famous question:"What is to be done?" Today, we Eritreans too face a national political crisis; we are trying to write a "road map" for struggle and, as such, it is appropriate to ask the same question.
Eritreans have so far been trying, to no avail, to pressure the PFDJ regime "to do the right thing" by criticizing, rejecting, and exposing its wrong path and direction. But the regime has unequivocally proven to be unrepentantly autocratic.
It is important for a person, a rational being, to follow the dictates of his or her conscience. For, real conscience is moral, as someone put it; real conscience is not selfish. Real conscience directs a person to work for the benefit of the greater good, not for his/her interest. Growing number of Eritreans in the diaspora are realizing the critical situation the country is in to-day. The conscience of even formerly die-hard supporters of the PFDJ regime has been disturbed by the daily news from back home. Thus, they started advocating for human rights of Eritreans to be respected by the Eritrean government. They asked the regime to charge political prisoners and prisoners of conscience, or release them unconditionally. They demanded the vibrant freedom of speech and expression Eritreans witnessed before September 18, 2001 to be restored in the county. They articulated that it was in order to usher in a new era of democratic rule in the country, that all such democratic rights were enshrined in the 1997 ratified Eritrean constitution, which the government has failed or has been unwilling to implement, shelving it indefinitely. And finally, they have been organizing themselves into grassroots organizations to discuss, debate, and ultimately fight the repressive regime in Eritrea. They realize governments are transient entities.
As a friend said to me the other day, however, people have made up their minds by now, and that every person who followed the country's politics in the past few years, has taken a stance. Those who would change their positions have done so already. But everyone does not, for many different reasons, come to such a realization at the same moment, and that many more will do so in due time, and in their own pace.
Why are we Eritreans so insistent upon our rights and the rights of our people to be respected by this regime? Because, it should be clear to the ever dwindling supporters of the Eritrean regime that we are talking about a country of our forefathers and our martyrs (old and new). We are not talking about a private property of some ill-advised, unsavory characters; ex-Tegadelti who think they are the smartest, or that they, because they brought about the independence of Eritrea, are entitled to rule for ever and, most tragically, abuse the rights of the Eritrean people.
When we advocate for our human rights to be respected, however, we should all be aware that rights also come with duties. If I ask to be listened to when I speak, I should be willing to listen when someone else wants to say something. It's give and take. I cannot demand to be heard, if I am not willing to hear the viewpoints of others. This equally applies to individuals as well as political parties and roganizations. More so to the latter, as it's the political parties and organizations that have been telling us for so long to fight the evils of the regime; they therefore have the obligation to listen to ordinary citizens and grassroots organizations. It is in that spirit that I add my thoughts to the ongoing discussion on what should be done in light of the dilemma Eritreans face today concerning their country.
The Alliance And ELF-RC/ELF-Abdella Idris "Collusion"
Although the opposition as a whole needs to come together and build a broader coalition against the repressive PFDJ-led regime, it was with amusement and some trepidation for the future, that I read the "Joint Communique of ELF-RC and ELF", signed by Seyoum Ogba-Michael chairman of the ELF-RC and Abdella Idris Mohammed of ELF. The communique (posted at Asmarino.com and I believe at Awate.com also) stresses cooperation, and possible unity, between the two organizations. The ELF-RC led by Seyoum now are allowing the notorious Abdella and his group to become mainstream players in the current Eritrean political landscape. Abdella Idris is a warlord and should, in a fair world, have been indicted for war crimes.
As one historian, whose name escapes me now, put it "history is a debate without end". I am mindful that there may be multiple versions of the story or, in this case, the history of our struggle. But, let me ask Seyoum and his ELF-RC: wasn't it Abdella Idris who caused the permanent disintegration of the ELF in 1982 at Rasai, by his atrocious act of murder seven months after the EPLF/TPLF conspiratorial war against the ELF ended in the defeat of the latter? (I will not go into details of why I think Abdella Idris is a criminal warlord; another topic for another time).
Even more confusing -- regarding the policies and strategies of the "Alliance" -- is the fact that if criminal warlords such as Abdella Idris are not excluded from the national opposition, but instead are being pampered and brought into mainstream politics by none other than the ELF-RC itself, why do the opposition -- the Alliance and its supporters to be specific -- then insist on armed resistance against the Eritrean regime? Why do they rule out negotiations and dialogue with the regime, and regard it instead as the enemy that would not listen to reason?
It is important to first put your own house in order. The Alliance, if it wants to be taken seriously, should not put off such historical grievances or issues for a latter date, and simply "unite" or join its organizations. Instead, outstanding historical issues of contention and conflict must be confronted and systematically dealt with before going forward, thus bringing forth the critical question of trust among the parties. Because, without trust, no substantive national action towards fighting the menace that the PFDJ has become, can be undertaken. To do otherwise would be tantamount to sowing the seeds of continued mistrust and conflict among the opposition in particular, and the Eritrean people in general, and reconciliation would be impossible.
Is There An Alternative For A Peaceful Struggle? It is my fervent belief that there is no alternative for a peaceful struggle. Armed struggle against the governments of Ethiopia was a legitimate means of asserting the rights and privileges the Eritrean people had lost at the hands of successive Ethiopian regimes. But, an armed struggle against the Eritrean government would simply be destructive. We know, those of us old enough or unfortunate enough to have witnessed it, what the civil wars of the seventies and eighties had done to our struggle. How could we contemplate, then, bringing the horrors of killing your own brothers and sisters again in independent Eritrea? There should be, and there is, an alternative to civil war, to killing each other. The peaceful resistance we should adopt can effectively be used to pressure the regime. We, the Eritrean people, can design a method of struggle that ultimately starves the beast and forces it to the negotiating table. In this regard, I do agree with Seyoum Tesfay's position and what he calls "The strategy of Negotiated Peaceful revolution."
Last, but not least, the Alliance's choice to hold its congress in Ethiopia is a wrong choice. The Weyane regime in Ethiopia has behaved and still behaves as the enemy of the Eritrean people. It was the Weyane regime that deported Eritreans -- men, women and children -- indiscriminately from their homes in Ethiopia; it was the Weyane regime that declared war, using its parliament, on Eritrea, not the Eritrean government; it was the Weyane regime which vowed to "emasculate" the Eritrean defense forces; it was the Weyane regime that invaded Eritrea and destroyed towns and villages. Not only that, it was the Weyane regime that deliberately desecrated martyrs cemetery and destroyed ancient historical monument. In light of these facts, whether one supports the Eritrean regime or not, makes no difference at all.
The "Alliance" is simply making a mistake by holding its conference in, from all places, Ethiopian soil, the Weyane regime playing host to these opposition groups, and where the same regime that until recently contemplated the destruction of Eritrea. The Eritrean people would not be expected to regard such actions kindly, would they? Or does this "Alliance" not care about the opinion of the people, similar to the regime the Alliance is fighting against? This is indeed unsettling.
Revisionism vs Eritrea's Indivisibility
All Eritreans must fight against the tendency by revisionists who seem to doubt the viability of Eritrea as a nation; some even question the correctness of our struggle for independence. These folks have for a while been attacking the psyche of Eritreans by asking whether "Eritreans should live together" or whether "Eritreans have anything in common at all", except, they tell us, their history of common struggle against Ethiopian rule. Others are in the business of disowning some groups of Eritreans as non-Eritreans who should be deported to wherever they came from. We should unequivocally warn these revisionists to stay away from such destructive talk. We should tell them without hesitation that Eritrea is indivisible as a nation, and that Eritreans historically, culturally and socially, have a lot in common than the mere 30 years of struggle for independence against a common enemy. I would not go into detail in this regard. Suffice it to say that the majority of Eritreans, whether they be Moslem or Christian, share language, two great religions and other cultural heritage -- including a culture of tolerance and peaceful coexistence -- with a common root that extends over a couple of millennia. Those who attempt either to question the commonality of the history of Eritreans or attempt to disown some groups should not tolerated at all.
National Conference vs. Reconciliation
In light of the dilemma we face today, many questions are being asked. What kind of situation (strengths and weakness) is the opposition in? What are the relationship among the opposition organizations themselves? Should a reconciliation conference be held before a National Conference? Why a national conference? To do what? What is reconciliation? With whom? Is there an alternative to a peaceful struggle? Should we instead resist the PFDJ regime by force of arms?
Obviously, I don't have the answers to all these questions, but I am sure about one thing: I believe, as I mentioned above, there is no alternative for peaceful struggle. A national conference can be held in the Diaspora, to bring folks from all background together to debate and finally approve a national strategy. Such a national conference could be the vehicle for ushering in an era of reconciliation. The national conference should include all forces, the alliance and the EPLF-DP as well as the newly constituted civil societies such as the Eritrean Public Forums (EPFs) as grass-roots organizations, and other groups from the Eritrean diaspora around the world.
Although, without the participation of the ruling PFDJ regime and its supporters such a conference cannot be truly called "national," in the true sense of the word, the way the PFDJ is behaving (rejecting any possibility for dialog with the growing and expanding opposition -- its top diplomat rejecting an appearance in a seminar organized by ordinary citizens such as the EPF, or even recognizing the Forums), the opposition as a whole is justified in holding such a "national" conference to debate and ultimately seek a consensus on important national issues.
However, we have to realize that "reconciliation" itself is a long process. No reconciliation, however well intentioned, can be achieved overnight, or over a fortnight at a conference or at a grand national gathering. That is because reconciliation is a healing process. Historically -- and we're talking over a period of four decades here -- a lot of wrongs and even crimes have been committed against many individuals or groups. There is a lot of hurt. In a national gathering, claims and counter claims could be heard, examined, and a strategy for handling grievances could be discussed, debated, and finally adopted by consensus. And as Antonio Tesfay said, reconciliation should involve asking for forgiveness for the wrongs done upon individuals, parties, organizations, and most importantly, upon the Eritrean people in general. Therefore, we have to take reconciliation as a process, that will continue for the foreseeable future, for years to come -
not as a one-time event.
Whatever the final product, that is, whether the "national" conference succeeds in agreeing to build a broader national coalition, an alliance, or an Eritrean National Congress (ENC), such an organization should be a well-equipped umbrella organization comprising all political parties, civil society organizations, and groups who would join their efforts together to fight the PFDJ regime.
In this regard, we definitely should not put trust in any one individual or group. Of particular concern is the fact that the "Alliance" still shelters tyrants such as Abdella Idris. This is self-defeating. Because, tyrants cannot be trusted to fight another tyrant and, at the end, hand over power willingly to the people. Abdella Idris is a warlord and a despicable criminal who ordered the murder of one of his own colleagues, Mel'ake Tekle, in the ELF leadership and ended, singlehandedly, in my opinion, the planned vitalization and rejuvenation of the ELF. Hence, the "Alliance" must understand that the Eritrean people wouldn't want to get rid of a tyrant to install another one in his place: the Eritrean people would be justified if they were to resolve, and rightly so, as the tgrNa saying goes, "kab zeytfelTo mel'aKsi: tfelTo seyTan" (better the Satan we know, than an angel we don't know).
The Ratified Eritrean Constitution
A few days ago, Saleh AA Younis wrote: "...However, what the Reformers missed—and still miss—is that to many Eritreans who were deliberately excluded during the process and to many Eritreans who participated but had their inputs ignored, the Constitution is an illegitimate piece of paper:written by the PFDJ, ratified by the PFDJ and, now, ignored by the PFDJ." [see "If Hitler Invaded Hell..."]
I can sympathize with and understand such sentiments. However, I believe the ratified Eritrean Constitution should be taken as a foundation upon which the future of Eritrean justice and democracy will be built. The constitution is absolutely not "illegitimate piece of paper". Simply because some groups and organizations were not invited or didn't want to participate during the constitution making process, or some of the inputs were "ignored", it doesn't make the ratified Constitution of Eritrea "illegitimate". People who entertain such an idea must clearly understand that the vast majority of the Eritrean people have participated in the constitution making process. Eritreans in and outside the country debated it thoroughly. The process took three years and finally the constitution was ratified by a constituent assembly. The problem, folks, is not the constitution or the constitution making process. As Saleh said, the constitution is one of the best documents Eritreans ever produced. The problem is the dictatorial PFDJ-led government that has failed, or is unwilling, to implement the constitution which, inter alia, provides for multi-party elections, the freedom of speech and expression, and an independent judiciary.
Let's think carefully: if every time a group, an opposition organization, or a political party disliked a constitution of the country because it was written by its political enemies and attempts to get rid of it, then there would be no political stability. This would only contribute to the cyclical misery we see all around our region. The great constitutions of the world, the U.S. constitution included, have been made better and even great by the continued "Amendments" that have been added to them. There is no reason why we, Eritreans, could not do that. There are already suggestions for amending some articles or add some provisions. Then, let those suggestions come and when, not if, a democratically elected "National Assembly" becomes a reality, the amendments could be added by the legal body and the constitution would be strengthened. Otherwise, to insist on discarding the current constitution before it has even been implemented and tested, not only is it a waste of time and energy, but would simply threaten the country's future and stability.
No Mandate From The Eritrean People
A mandate to do away with this regime MUST be obtained from the Eritrean people, after, an Eritrean National Congress or a broader coalition of all forces that truly reflects the current climate is created, and before any substantive action or work is taken. I would also strongly suggest that every avenue of peace must exhaustively be pursued before the "national opposition leadership," that must be elected in such a national conference, decides on introducing, if at all, a military resistance against the regime. Such a mandate to introduce an armed resistance must be obtained from the Eritrean people. Because, in the final analysis, it is the people who should give or take away such a mandate. No opposition group, organization or party, can claim right now as having such a mandate from the people -- not the ELF-RC and its "Alliance" forces, nor the new party, the EPLF-DP.
Conclusion
Let me reiterate that a "national" conference, which should include all forces for peaceful and democratic change in Eritrea, would create a conducive environment for the birth of a broader coalition or an Eritrean National Congress. Such an organization should be able come to a consensus on several issues of "national" importance, including the following:
- the ratified Eritrean Constitution is a foundation upon which the future of Eritrean democracy and justice should be built.
- Eritrea is indivisible as a nation; Eritreans have a lot in common historically than the mere 30 years of common struggle against Ethiopian rule;
- a mandate to do away with this regime MUST be obtained from the Eritrean people;
- a "National" consensus must be reached and a body that represents this consensus must be established before any substantive action or work is taken;
- If criminal warlords, such as Abdella Idris, are not excluded from the national opposition, and particularly from a leadership position in a coalition organization or force, then the opposition should not insist on armed resistance against the regime either. Every avenue of peace must exhaustively be pursued before deciding on introducing, if at all, military resistance against the regime.
