|
I have had so many "to be continued" in my previous posts, a friend reminded me that I owe plenty. Communism, social justice, vanguardism, patriotism, Islamists, Ali Said, Michela Wrong and other allegedy connected themes are all here. It is a Selata Tursh: a bowl of salad. I think there is a thread somewhere but I am trying to exercise my Eritreanism and be laconic in my boast. Communism is not dead; its practitioners have just repackaged it under an undeniably attractive new wrapping paper: social justice. I know, I know, who could possibly be against “social justice”? We have to remember that, in its modern application, social justice means to advocate distribution and redistribution of resources until a near-perfect balance between regions, population groups, ethnic groups, genders and religious groups is achieved. Workers of the world, just observe, you have nothing to lose but your freedom. Social justice sounds harmless enough, in fact quite ideal and it accounts for much of the narrowing of gaps between the very rich and the very poor. But there are problems. To begin with, and contrary to those who like to present it as “home grown” or “organic” philosophy,(neo-Totilism or Zemehretism:-) it is just another import from the dreaded imperial West (Immanuel Kant.) In Kant’s world, it is part of a menu: you can take it, and I can leave it—because we have a choice, freely exercised. But here’s the problem, as applied in the Third World: The argument goes something like this: since this job of perfecting society is difficult, it can only be done by (a) party/government with (b) strong powers of coercion, which has to (c) stay in power for a very long, long time so that its noble work of tipping the scales is not undone by silly whims that are offered by “liberal democracy.” Enter vanguardism. In Eritrea, as in most of the third world, this version of social justice requires vanguard organizations--political organizations that have a monopoly on diagnosing and curing all ills. The belief in vanguard organizations—let’s call it vanguardism--has two things in common: (1) a glorification of a party and its history; (2) a near total absence of any discussion of the people or their land except to the extent of chronicling how they were or will be victimized--by foreign oppressors, by local tyrants, by traitors and by plagues—and how the excellent political platform outlined by ____ (fill in acronym) addresses all their needs. This is not to say that the organizations don’t have histories to be proud of or that the people have not been victimized by disasters, natural and God-made. What I am suggesting is that vanguardism also distorts patriotism. Patriotism I think people the world over believe that their country is special. Not surprisingly, I think many of us believe that Eritrea is special and Eritreans are special. To me, patriotism is a belief, an irrational one, that your people and your nation are special. Yes, our land is practically barren and yes our people are poor and illiterate, and yes, it is impossible to quantify or qualify why we believe our nations are special. Yes, it is true, that this belief can be abused: into a frenzy of war, into a frenzy of hating an enemy; it can be abused into a belief of superiority. Yes, it is fair criticism that those of us who hold on to this irrational view are easier to be duped into wars than those that don’t. Yes, every nation needs its intellectuals to remind it that this whole thing is bunk. Still, I have the right to have a mysterious smile fixed on my face, like somebody who knows a secret, like a gambler whose hole card is an ace, like a reader who knows the ending of the book, like a person who knows that Eritrea and Eritreans, in the long run, will occupy a special place in Africa. Eritrea’s recent history is impossible to explain without acknowledging that there were sufficient number of irrational people who held on to the view that Eritrea is a special place. But vanguardism distorts this completely because it adds a new hierarchy on top of the nation: the all-powerful party that demands pledges of loyalty. Vanguardism In The PFDJ The joke in Eritrea is that PFDJ proclamations all come with an expiration date. Tipping the scales of justice for perfection, or their vision of it, requires a lot of tinkering. And since the job of perfecting things requires all the other moving parts to remain still, vanguardism demands political monopoly which leads to political atrophy which leads to a paralyzed populace. The people—the masses—are there, but only as theatrical props and extras to deliver, on cue, how grateful they are to their vanguard organization for digging a well or building a micro-dam. No institution exists except for the government. This was demonstrated dramatically recently. Throughout the world, American embassy officials meet with business leaders, opposition politicians, educators, home-based NGOs, etc. Several weeks ago, the US Ambassador to Eritrea, Scott DeLici, met with the only professional association that could be remotely considered quasi-independent: the members of Eritrea’s Chambers of Commerce. In a meeting, he asked their opinion of what they thought of the government’s various proclamations regarding the private sector. He might as well have asked them why the sky is blue: the response was a stunned silence. To the PFDJ, it was outrageous that an ambassador bypassed the vanguard organization and asked, directly, the people their opinion of a government policy. (Hmmm: “We are uncomfortable with USAID activities.”) Several weeks later, he had yet another meeting with the same group confirming that USAID has been asked to leave. (later: "our decision regarding USAID is irreversible.") Next: if he had represented a tiny nation, the ambassador would have been expelled. But he is American, and the PFDJ will wait him out, until a new one is accredited who will, of course, begin with a "new leaf" and USAID will be re-invited. Obviously, the ambassador was unfamiliar with vanguardism. In vanguardism, what happens is this: there is a PFDJ-organized seminar where businessmen are told their national obligation. Then they pass a resolution, by unanimous vote, supporting the points outlined by the representative of the Vanguard organization. Victory to the masses. The ambassador is free to listen and take notes or wait for the event to be broadcast in the vanguard-owned TV station (the only one.) Take any member of the PFDJ, for example: to him or her, the only thing special about Eritrea is PFDJ. Actually, the only thing special about PFDJ is its chairman. (exhibit 72: Sherifo, Petros Solomon, etc.)The people are to be pitied or, like the sick, to be cared for, the land to be improved and protected, but the PFDJ is to be loved and respected and pledged eternal loyalty toward. They agree that Eritrea’s art, its traditions, its religions, its provinces, its history, and its personalities are worthy of veneration but only to the extent that the vanguard organization gives them a stamp of approval. To them, there is nothing sacred about Eritrea: if the PFDJ, in pursuit of social justice, decides to subvert, undermine, de-personify, redraw, castrate, de-legitimize anything, well then vanguardism requires quiet acceptance. When the PFDJ and its supporters describe Eritreans as people built for endurance, unwilling to tolerate injustice, capable of prevailing against all odds, or capable of showing great harmony towards those different from them, they really don’t mean that this is a national character shared by all Eritreans; they are saying it is a character instilled and imposed by the PFDJ and, like a fire, its warmth is not felt the further away you are from PFDJ. In fact, they often remind us that without the PFDJ, and without its chairman at its helm, the country would collapse, Somalia-like, into total anarchy. This is not patriotism; it is party-ism. It is individual worship. In fact, I would argue that it is contempt for Eritrea and Eritreans. When they think that we in the opposition are going away, that we are on our last breath, that we will soon disintegrate; I argue that they are demonstrating their contempt for the people of Eritrea, which they can only overcome by saying that we are not good Eritreans, or not Eritreans at all. In fact when they describe how few we are, I enjoy a quiet smile, like somebody who knows a secret, like a gambler whose hole card is an ace, like a reader… Because I know we are all Eritreans, made from the same cloth: all built for endurance. All capable of overcoming great odds. The “against all odds” is a national, not a PFDJ, character. To accept that is to accept that the opposition is here to stay—forever. If you want evidence, take a look at the ELF and its offshoots: here are a group of people who, in addition to facing the American/Israeli/Soviet/Cuba/East Germany/South Yemen opposition that the EPLF faced and is rightfully celebrated for overcoming, they also faced the EPLF/TPLF/Sudan/Ethiopia hostility, plus the ridicule of the entire NGO world, plus the defamation of the Western journalists, plus the neglect of the international community, plus the indifference of the people for whom they bled and endured suffering…. And, after all that, to be alive and active, if that is not against all odds, what is? If you think my assertion that vanguardism distorts patriotism is an exaggeration, consider this: a surprisingly large number of the young Eritreans who have escaped from Eritrea—after they bled and suffered for her—don’t just hate the PFDJ. They absolutely detest the whole country. I am not talking about “apathy” or being “apolitical” but an actual shunning and revulsion at the mere mention of the word Eritrea. This, I submit, is what happens when the party says I am the nation and the path to your nation is only through me, and then the party finds ever-creative ways to create hell on earth. Separating Patriotism from Ultra-Nationalism It is true that the PFDJ’s war mongering ways have exploited the Eritrean national character—but the response is not to attack the national character, but its exploiter. We must refrain from ridiculing Eritreans' sense that we are special just because an irresponsible vanguardism has exploited this sense of special-ness. We must attack ultra-nationalism and the symptoms of militarism but, in the process, we must leave our national character intact. Not only must the opposition groups refrain from attacking our sense of special ness, they must celebrate it, because it belongs to them. They contributed mightily in its development. For every Sirihit Commando, there was Sirihit Sembel; for every wedi Tikul, there was an Abrar, for every Afabet, there was Togoruba, for every Ibrahim Afa, there was Abdulkader Ramadan; for every… every…. And, despite Michela Wrong’s book, (no, I am still not reviewing it, just venting) the ELF fedayeen operations were not characterized by their “cheesiness” nor were the operations humorous. They were the very awakening of Eritrean nationalism and instilling of national pride. The best thing that Eritrean opposition organizations can do is to provide a series of celebrations of Eritrea and Eritreans. I mean showcases of our geography, our culture, our history, our traditions, our people, our personalities. In addition to telling us why the PFDJ must be resisted, tell us why the people are worth dying for, how and why our culture evolved into a relatively crime-free, and harmonious society. This is people connectedness. I don’t see a celebration of Eritrea—its culture, its geography, the decency of its people, very often in our literature. I am biased, of course, but the only one I see doing that occasionally is Negarit, with its Keren-centric stories that celebrate the town’s eccentricities. I am so hungry for this, I asked the author of Negarit what the column’s next installment is going to be. He said, “it is probably going to be about one of the greatest Eritrean artists who was instrumental in the development of the modern music of Eritrea and Ethiopia.” I said, “Great! For once it is not going to be about some Keren boy.” His response, “Whoever told you the artist is not from Keren?” Can’t wait. Vanguardism In The Opposition Every Eritrean political organization has, or carries the history, of vanguardism. Go back and read the literature of ELF, EPLF and their dba’s. Read the literature of EDM (Falul) and its offshoots. Read the Islamists and the ethnic and regional federalists. ELF is the first organization, ELF-RC has 44 years of democracy, the Federalists are the first of their kind. I am not talking about standard marketing practiced by all political parties, but glorification of the party or the front and an appraisal of the people from a standpoint of pity requiring salvation. It is a mere suspicion based on bias, but I think that this whole movement towards decentralization--“self-determination”, ethnic federation, regional federation, etc, all in pursuit of the elusive social justice--is a diffusion of vanguardism: a formula for sharing vanguardism by creating the “only legitimate spokesperson” type of organizations for each religion/region/ethnic group. My suspicion is that in decentralization, we won’t need just one “menqesaqesi,” like the one used by PFDJ, but one for each region. But that is a topic for another day, after it evolves from mere suspicion/bias into an argument. ( I know my friends at EFDM are now sharpening their pencils, but hold on until I compose my arguments:-) What I want to focus on here is how vanguardism distorts patriotism even in organizations out of power—and I will pick on the Islamists, not because I haven’t seen similar language penned by, for example, the Red Sea Afar (during the height of the Eritrea-Ethiopia war, by the way), but only because the Islamist example is the most dramatic and the most recent. The whole idea that the interests of Eritrean Muslims can only be represented by an Islamist organization is the essence of vanguardism. Not surprisingly, the Islamists, like communists, are big advocates of social justice, which is the ultimate job security for all aspiring and practicing politicians. Whereas the secular vanguard organizations sense of social justice is confined to people within certain geography, Islamists, like communists, are looking for a world outside the borders. The logic of the Islamists is deceptively simple: somebody is coming to kill me, and I killed him before he could. It reminds one of the absurd logic of the character Yosarian in Joseh Heller’s great novel “Catch 22” who was convinced that everybody who is carrying a gun and shooting is doing it just to kill him. The ultimate proof that vanguardism distorts patriotism—placing the needs of the party over that of the nation—are the military communiqués that are issued by the armed wing of the Eritrean Islamists. If their top priorities were the people and they were aware of their sensitivities and sensibilities, we would be reading communiqués like the following: Last week, at ______, we encircled 10 members of the Eritrean Defense Forces. We harbor no hatred towards these children, who are conscripted and herded against their will. However, as a military organization we had to take measures to defend ourselves. Thus, these 10 members of the EDF were encircled, asked to drop their arms and surrender. Our members then took their Eritrean brothers to the Sudan where they are now in the process of asking for political asylum… Well, you can’t say the last sentence because the UNHCR does not give political asylum to members of an army, even a conscript army. But you get the idea. If the confrontation resulted in actual shedding of blood, then the communiqué should be reported with remorse, not as an accomplishment. But in vanguardism it is the needs of the organization—the morale of its members, the desire to keep its troops “motivated”—that trumps the need of the people. I have seen no evidence thus far, nor a claim made by anybody except the PFDJ, that the armed Islamists have deliberately targeted civilians. So the accusation of terrorism is unsubstantiated. But how is it lost on them that every Eritrean Muslim, on whose behalf they struggle, has immediate family members in the EDF? The possibilities are that they know and have somehow found a justification for it—which shows a complete disconnectedness with Eritrea. This is bad enough, but the other possibility is worse: that the communiqués they write celebrating the killing of an “enemy” are designed to impress non-Eritrean Islamists of the violent kind. This is because in the hood of the global violent Islamists, this kind of communiqué gives you reputation, or ‘rep’ in the parlance of the American ghettos, where instant credibility is acquired if one commits a crime and gets sent to jail. The EDA has a huge task of determining which one it is and soon: because the first explanation is reform-able, but the second is not. Postscript: Ali Said Some of our correspondents indicated surprise at Awate’s obituary of Ali Sayed which they found balanced and complimentary. Well, here’s my take of it: the Eritrean history has three chapters. Act 1 was the act of bringing about Eritrea’s independence. These had actors whose role, regardless of the banner they carried, regardless of their latter roles, must be recognized, appreciated and celebrated. One of the most infuriating things about Eritrean politics is how each side tries downplaying the role of the other. (Exhibit # 795: Shabait’s recent report on September 1.) Act 2 was the post independent Eritrea, which has its actors, regardless of the banners they carried, and their role must be evaluated objectively, regardless of their roles in Act 1. Act 3 is being written now: the post-change Eritrea. Time will tell whether it will be written by our younger siblings, by our children or grandchildren. I would say that our report on Ali Sayed was part of Awate’s modest effort to contribute to the mega-task of reconciliation, but I want to be “laconic in [my] boasts.” See below… Post Postscript: Michela Wrong … no, this is not going to be a review of the book. Briefly, I think the book suffers, like most previous books about the subject, from what the statisticians call “self-selecting bias”—the usual sources, with their usual perspectives, a surprising one for classy reporter who had shown that she can capture the essence of a subject--with style, wit, and class. Here’s one of my favorites from one of her reports on the Eritrea-Ethiopia war, which she reported for the Financial Times and, for me, encapsulated the absurdity of that war while giving us a very accurate glimpse of the players: When there is fighting, Eritrea accuses Ethiopia of launching the attack at 5 am—the attacks always seem to start at 5 am. Soon after, Ethiopia accuses Eritrea of doing exactly the same but adds for good measure that it has humiliated, decimated and destroyed the Eritrean troops. The Eritreans are usually more laconic in their boasts.
Eritreans are (or were) laconic in their boasts, before the vanguard organizations taught us to be lavish with our boasts--even on things we shouldn’t boast about.
This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it
|
