We are days away from another all-inclusive conference of the Eritrean opposition groups, parties and fronts in Khartoum. Because there is a great deal of expectation for this meeting, we have been attempting to gauge the sentiments of the leaders of the opposition and report them to our readers to enable all of us to align our expectations with what is likely to happen. We will also address some of the combustible issues that have arisen since the initial meeting in January, and the roles of some organizations in inflaming and diffusing the issues.

Overall, we have been very encouraged by the pledges and reassurances we have received from the opposition leaders. There is a sense of do-or-die in many quarters, with one prominent leader assuring us that failure is not an option�in his words: "We can't afford to fail this time, and we won't allow it to happen." Some have also gone on record that they will, in the interest of unity, drop some of the pre-requisites they had been strongly identified with. But we have also been discouraged by a couple of organizations who have presented their maximal views as "principled positions"�as if the other 14 organizations have no principled position�and have positioned themselves as outsiders-looking-in: lecturing and hectoring each other and, by extension, others on how to wage an effective struggle. This is not a way to build the much-needed confidence.

We are convinced that much of this is due to two reasons: posturing and political inexperience. The Egyptians have an expression: kan qeirrek ashTer which they apply to anyone who likes to present himself as a know-it-all, always providing easy answers to complex questions. If we allow ourselves a moment of modesty and consider the possibility that the intensity with which we hold a view is no guarantee of its correctness, we may be more open-minded, more willing to listen, less ready to lecture others.

In any event, the promise of the EDA is not perfection, but a beginning�one where no organizations is asked to drop its "principles" but to be bound by the prevailing view, whether it is expressed in a vote or a consensus view. We at Awate find much to disagree with the positions adopted or are likely to be adopted by the EDA; but we hold the view that as long as the institution practices democracy, it will express the will of the Eritrean people�whether we agree or disagree with them. That is the essence of the struggle: it is not so that our viewpoints will prevail; it is so that the views of the people, the Eritrean people, will. At this stage, the only function of a political organization is to help create the environment that will enable the people to do so.

Every tiny organization, in fact, every individual is free to express their individual views as if they are representative of the view of the people. But that does not make it so. In our current situation, where the PFDJ has barred the right of the people to freely elect their leaders in free and fair contests, the only alternative is to create a broad-based coalition of parties, organizations and fronts that are voluntarily organized and composed of a diverse membership that resembles Eritrea. It is only when they get together and vote on, or arrive at a consensus, that the claim to represent "the people" can be credibly made. That is the Khartoum promise. Until then, it is all posturing.

The Combustible Issues

During the armed struggle, the political organizations�ELF and EPLF�adopted platforms that were conducive to forming national liberation fronts. Because national liberation movements were synonymous with "progressive" thought, they, like all national liberation movements, adopted socialist viewpoints, which took a dim view of the role of religion, region and ethnicity in the identity of citizens. They taught that it is only when individuals subordinate their regional, ethnic and religious affiliation to that of the nation that a new Eritrea can be molded; and they defined those who cling to region, ethnicity or religion as dangerous reactionaries or tools of colonialism. They point with pride to the achievement of the goal of the liberation movements�Eritrea�s independence�as vindication for their viewpoints.

On the other hand, there are others who point to the failure in achieving the second goal of the liberation movements�instituting a just and democratic society�as a byproduct of this viewpoint. They point to the cost�dis-enfranshing, dislocating people and uprooting them from their traditional affiliations�as destructive for the soul of Eritrea and, in fact, the every essence and identity of Eritrea. They fear that unless fundamental changes are made, even democracy, desirable as it is, will not address what they consider decades-long injustices�but only legitimize them.

Which viewpoint is correct?

Contrary to the viewpoint pushed by the PFDJ that the people would be at each other�s throat had it not been for its brand of "guided democracy" (and the Dictator�s publicly stated view that without his wise vigilance, ethnic cleansing is not inconceivable in Eritrea), we believe that we are fortunate that we come from a nation whose people have demonstrated, for centuries, that they are capable of harmonious co-existence and had designed built-in mechanisms to diffuse disagreements. To the extent that there are problems, we believe most, if not all, of them were creations of political agents�the political fronts (particularly PFDJ) and Ethiopia�s occupation.

Ultimately, the people will decide whether liberal democracy will cure all their ills (as some political parties seem to say), or whether fundamental changes in how the society is organized are required as a pre-requisite (as others do.) We believe this is a legitimate debate that should occupy the minds of our scholars and politicians. What is not helpful is the shrieking language and the immoderate language. What we find unacceptable is branding one view as patriotic and nationalist and the other as illegitimate, alien, or seditious. We believe every viewpoint, no matter how "extreme" it may appear to some, should be debated.

Terrorism or Civil War?

A few weeks ago, an opposition organization announced one of a series of violent confrontations of its forces against the government forces. With the exception of those who chose to forget, everybody else knew about such confrontations for over a decade now: violence has been raging for years, long before the PFDJ hijacked the independence of Eritrea and installed itself as a government and, subsequently, a tyranny. It never stopped after independence.

Many writers and activists have repeatedly warned of the impeding risk of a full-fledged military confrontation, while the regime, and its supporters were belittling the warnings and arrogantly downplaying the ability of the opposition to challenge the regime: "the government will crush any opposition." Operatives of the regime, like Abdella Jabir, were ignoring the opposition as "nefer, neferen" (one or a couple) who would amount to nothing. Similarly, Isaias is on record badmouthing everybody who didn�t submit to his dictatorship. The same people who asked for a dialogue with the regime were told to "surrender" to the PFDJ, just like traitors surrendered to the Dergue, when Mengistu Hailemariam announced his famous "sholko yeweTa, sholko ygba" (Those who sneaked out, can sneak in) doctrine. Many of those who were denied entry to their country have been carrying guns ever since. Patriots refused to submit to the PFDJ�s call for shame and humiliation reminding the regime that they were not bandits but strugglers for a national freedom. Such is the background and it should not be forgotten because solutions should be based on truth and honesty.

Now, even if Islah (or any of its precursors) was issuing such statements for over a decade, we believe that at a time the opposition is undergoing a negotiation with other organizations, issuing such a loaded announcement is provocative, especially when the announcement carries sectarian emphasis. Not only did this provide an opportunity for the PFDJ to practice what it is good at�scaring the people�but also it gave ammunition to some demagogues to pick their megaphones and complicate the incident. Now that they see a solution on the horizon, they had to work hard to exclude those they think don�t belong in the national arena. This second-provocation is what some political leaders chose to pick and further. In the middle, there was a message to their narrow constituency: it is "our brothers who are being killed"! Who are brothers and who are strangers? Isn�t this a civil war where a brother is killing a brother?

Political correctness doesn�t work here. The responsibility (and origin) of any violence in Eritrea falls right in the laps of the ruling regime, especially the boss of the PFDJ and his close associates. This is the clique that left no choice for thousands of Eritreans to seek their rights in any possible way. Fighting for your right is a natural reaction established throughout the history of humanity. When people are denied their rights, they have all the right to seek their freedom, and reclaim their rights by any means at their disposal. Such was the cause of the Eritrean revolution- years of peaceful struggle and legal wrangling didn�t produce results, the armed struggle was the next natural result. It was violent. It was destructive. It was painful. And it was just.

What is the solution? Let�s begin with what is not. It is dishonest and the worst type of pandering to describe an armed confrontation between two armed brothers as "terrorist" and "barbaric." The solution is not a lazy half-page statement and an emotional blast on the airwaves. A good beginning to a solution would be honesty and humility. Then we can try conducting a genuine study of the issue and its root-causes in an effort to diagnose the ailment properly. We can place it in context, instead of trying to present it as if it just started yesterday. If people were sleeping when it was starting, it doesn�t mean it was not there before they woke up from their deep sleep. The job of politicians who aspire to positions of leadership is to provide solutions to the multiples of problems Eritrea is facing, not add to it.

It was also destructive for the organization that is being accused of barbaric terrorism to respond in the manner it did, presenting its accuser as if it is a clique of an individual when it is actually a party. It is destructive to drudge up alleged crimes against someone with whom you just pledged to the Eritrean people that you would work for their interest. A party that claims to be waging a struggle on behalf of all Eritreans should not describe half of them as "they." And a political organization that is supposed to be in the service of the people should not be in the business of issuing threats to journalists and other citizens.

In our view, what is going on in Eritrea is a civil war that could be brought to an end if the PFDJ would show maturity and stop treating Eritrea as its private ranch. But the EDA is confronted by a major task of taming its armed wings. True, there is no military power that the EDA controls, its members do. But now, organizations should stop operating like a militia of a warlord and must be answerable to a combined Eritrean opposition will. This exercise should not be postponed anymore.

We have raised the issue of unifying the armed wings of the opposition organizations many times. They should be brought to a central political command under the EDA, immediately, and be structured along national lines reflecting the face of Eritrea. Political indoctrination of the army should be banned. Instead, the army should be trained on how to protect the interest of the people based on a charter (and later on a constitution). It must be trained to recognize that its mission is to protect the people and then the land. It should be the muscle of the people against future dictators. It is the guarantee to protect the gains in the struggle for justice, democracy and rule of law. It is the guarantee for personal freedoms and human rights. It is the guarantee for stability of future Eritrea.

The Leader of the EDA

Any Eritrean has the right to seek the offices of leadership within the EDA. Anybody who competes for the position and wins democratically has the right to lead. Leadership aspirants should not shy away from their right to lobby and move strings to succeed in being elected. In the end, the able should be blessed to lead based on a democratic process.

It is not our place to endorse candidates, but there are lessons that should be applied from the experiences of the ENA. We think it is unfair to our struggle to have the wrong leaders. At minimum, the leadership aspirant should be totally committed to the EDA. Those who give mixed messages regarding the EDA and view their membership as a necessary evil should voluntarily stay away from leadership positions. The aspirant should be a coalition-builder, not someone who is a divider. The leader must be someone who recognizes the PFDJ for what it is�a force that must be defeated�and not someone who is ambivalent about the subject.

And, most importantly, the leader must have a demonstrated record of competence and one who sees that Eritrea is in dire straits and demands salvation, sooner rather than later.

We wish the opposition parties, fronts and groups Godspeed. 

This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it