Regime change and democratization?

Lately, there has been a healthy and robust debate about regime change and democratization in Eritrea. Most of the arguments focus on Eritrea's transition from an authoritarian regime to democratic governance. There is a strong consensus among the writers that the "higdefite" regime must be dismantled and replaced with a democratic one, while a small minority, at least, theoretically, considers the possibility of "higdef" making some concessions to popular demands that could gradually usher us to genuine democratization. At the heart of these views lies the understanding people have on "higdef" and the saliency of violence.

Regime change and democratization are not mutually exclusive. Regime change does not usually lead to democratization while democratization is not always preceded by a regime change. The two, however, could be two faces of the same coin, and with the right strategy, they can both concomitantly lead to what the people want: self-governance. In fact, self-governance is a two-track approach that entails the dismantlement of authoritarian rule and the restoration of popular sovereignty.

We, Eritreans, however, have learned a hard lesson that it is not enough to only fight a half-battle. We can't suppress the pessimism of our most recent experience. We fought to get rid of external evil only to replace it with a domestic one. Most of us, Eritreans, are not willing to walk that path again. We can't afford to separate regime change from democratization. The removal of weeds has to go hand in hand with the nurturing of the seeds. For this, we're willing to be patient, for we understand that this battle has to be fought at all fronts. As the ox must plough the furrows, so must the Eritreans fight. And fighting is what we'll ceaselessly do. But, this is a different kind of fighting that would require us to show unprecedented moral courage.

How is "Higdef" perceived by Eritreans:

By criminalizing the opposition, "Higdef" has committed the avatar of all evils. The oppositions, according to "Higdef", are not opponents but enemies of the regime and the state, and as such, were viciously persecuted even in exile in neighboring countries. The criminalization of the opposition has left an indelible mark on the psycho-political make-up of the Eritrean people. Some groups on the opposition have become a mirror image of "higdef" and have incorporated some vindictive agenda in their political platform. Winning without the total annihilation of their "enemy" is not enough for these groups. This is not healthy and we need to nib it in its bud.

"Higdef" is an evil regime, but not everybody in "Higdef" is evil. In fact, most of the people serving the "Higdef" regime are decent and caring Eritreans who need to be awakened. The focus should be on how we win over the majority of the decent and caring Eritreans who are inadvertently and unconsciously serving the evil regime of "Higdef", rather than on those few who are incorrigibly evil and beyond redemption. If the God of Abraham was willing to spare Gomorrah for the sake of four good people, I think, we can dispense justice to the few for the sake of the many good people we've in "Higdef".

The opposition does not have to inherit this "higdefite" legacy of criminalizing the opposition. The opposition must view the "higdefite" regime, as an illegitimate regime that has betrayed its public mandate and its own political platform. "Higdef" as a front had a decent political platform that was endorsed by many decent Eritreans, and these are the first people that have become victims of "higdefite" miss-rule and tyranny. The opposition must not add insult to injury by summarily condemning all "higdefites". "Higdefitism" as practiced is indubitably evil, but "higdefitism" in its original intent is not. Like all political platforms, "higdefitism" has its weaknesses and strengths. "Higdefites" who are true to their political platform, have a role to play in post Isaias Eritrea and could be a viable alternative. We can't afford to lose one to gain another. We need to foster a win-win situation where all Eritrean forces, whether guilty of wrong deeds or not, could play a constructive role in the establishment of a strong and viable democratic Eritrea that truly relishes its political diversity. The zero-sum culture of win or lose must stop. It is unhealthy and counter-productive.

The saliency of violence:

The "higdef" regime has betrayed public mandate and is, as such, illegitimate. This illegitimate regime is using violence to suppress any dissent by persecuting the opposition, prohibiting free press and all other basic rights and freedoms that are enshrined in the constitution. It has hence lost its authority and nullified the contract it had with the people and consequently is in a state of war. This unlawful regime is at war with the people and is using every force it has at its disposal to strengthen its grip on power. There is no moral prohibition from using violence to overthrow an illegal regime. It was right when we armed struggle against the "Shewan Crown" and "Dergue" and it is right to do the same against the "higdefte Dergue". The use of violence as a last resort is morally justifiable and sometimes politically necessary. We can't there fore ask the opposition to surrender this right, but we can exhort them to use it as a last resort when all options are exhausted and explored.

At this juncture in Eritrean history, however, there is no need for resorting to violence. It is even morally repugnant to even think about it. There would not be any more bloodshed in Eritrea. Enough is enough. Period!! Extreme measures will be and must be taken to minimize conflicts and resolve them peacefully. Four decades of violent conflict, has taught us a hard lesson that we should not succumb to the use of force and particularly when it is among ourselves. Eritrea is in need of a political campaign and not a military one. Mass mobilization through effective media campaign, public discourses and other communication channels are the best weapons at the disposal of the opposition. This is the area where the opposition has to show greater leadership. In the name of expediency, the opposition could be tempted to the use of force, but this is the area, where maximum restraint and discipline is of urgent necessity. By publicly denouncing the use of force, the opposition would gain more in the long run. Use of force as a last resort is a given, that has to be taken for granted, but, talking about it and discussing it at this juncture is merely a distraction and a digression from what is timely and highly important.

I'm of the opinion that regime change and democratization can be achieved in Eritrea without resorting to violence. I'm a strong believer in the collective wisdom of the Eritrean people. The Eritrean people in their silence are speaking volumes to the opposition and the regime in power. The message to the opposition is simple: "charity begins at home" and so get your acts together and prove to the people that you deserve their support. While the message to the regime is that peoples' patience is running thin and that their wrath will be soon unleashed. The Eritrean people have learned to survive against all odds and they know that they will eventually triumph over "higdefite" tyranny and secure their freedom. They know that it is a journey that would be traveled by the majority of them and they're patiently waiting to embark on it together. When they embark on the journey together, no body would be on their way. If they don't walk together, the regime would try to subdue them, thus, leading to more violence and bloodshed. Acting together would deprive the regime the monopoly it has on the use of force. The army and the police would be on the side of the people. There would not be any decent Eritrean soldier who would listen to the orders of Gen. Wuchu, Flipos, Teklai, China or wedi memhr. Besides, military leaders under authoritarian regimes are like fruit, which cling to the tree only until it is ripe. By becoming self-sufficient, they do what most before them did, overthrow their boss or desert him to save their skin. By giving these generals unlimited power, Isaias is digging his own grave.

The strategy of a peaceful struggle is to mobilize people. No government, how good its security apparatus is, can survive without the continual blessing of the majority of the people. "Higdef" is rapidly losing legitimacy and support from the people and pretty soon it would be dead-regime-walking. Through its misguided policies and excesses, "Higdef" is contributing to its early demise, but the opposition, as yet, has not become a beacon of hope for the people by democratizing itself and by engaging in constructive debates of national interest.

Mesfin Hagos of EPLF-DP has ushered in a new era in Eritrean politics by calling the Eritrean army to stay out of politics. De-politicizing the army is another approach that could help a peaceful transition from an authoritarian to a democratic regime. The Eritrean army is a highly disciplined army that could easily be won if the opposition proved that it is a political force at odds with the political regime and not the country. The message that the army is the protector of the country and the people must be preached day in and day out. The goal is not only to alienate the regime from the people but also from the army that plays a major role in the stability of the country.

The opposition does not have to work hard to discredit the regime; the regime is pretty good at it. The opposition, must, however, change itself, unite and show greater commitment to democracy to win the trust of the Eritrean people. The opposition, whether old or new, has not proven to the Eritrean people that they have their interests at heart. If the opposition cannot put aside old grudges and differences for the sake of the country beset by enormous problems, regime change would never mean democratization. The Eritrean people are not interested in knowing who was a good guy and who was a bad guy in the course of our struggle. The message to the leaders is simple: don't let the past use you, use the past to forge a better future for your people. This is a new era that requires new thinking, attitude and approaches, and the only ones that are not changing with these new realities are the leaders. This is the part that requires unprecedented courage. We need the courage to be ready and willing to sit and negotiate even with Satan for the sake of our people and country. The leaders must have the humility not to put their personal feelings ahead of national interests. Eritrean interest must not and should not be taken hostage by personal egos.

I voice my criticism with the utmost respect for the people in the opposition. I'm proud and grateful of the fact that they have not given up on their people. They have kept the promise of freedom alive and are showing encouraging signs that they have what it takes to shoulder the responsibility of saving a nation on the verge of collapse. I voice my criticism to let them realize that they have a lot of groundwork to do. First and foremost, they need to all come under one umbrella and establish an effective organization that can mobilize the people and galvanize their support. People are sick and tired of these small splinter of groups that make the business of opposition seem as little cottage industries of disgruntled leaders and their inner circle.

Isaias "I told you so" campaign against the Alliance of Eritrean Forces:

No doubt, Isaias would wage an aggressive campaign of vilification and ostracism against the opposition groups that held its' meeting in Addis. He would be heard in every media outlet reciting the "I told you so" rhetoric. In typical "higdefite" fashion of "I know it all" bravado, he would preach hatred against the opposition by portraying them as latter-day "weyanites". Unfortunately, this is a campaign, I'm afraid that might have some resonance with the Eritrean public who have increasingly become suspicious and leery of anything that looks and smells like "weyane". The opposition cannot ignore this reality and it is high time that they begun addressing it. It can't be deferred any longer. The opposition must not let this event be Isais's media bonanza. A strong rebuttal is in order.

As I said or alluded in my most recent column, I don't fault the opposition for holding it's meeting in Addis. Against the mounting evidence to the contrary, I believe, Addis is by far the most logical haven of the alliance. This is simply real politicking. The opposition must capitalize on the regional and international trends that favor it. As far as Eritrean vital interests are not compromised, all options must be explored.

The opposition, however, must address some serious concerns and reservations the public is frequently entertaining. The opposition must explain the nature of its relationship with the "weyane" in particular and the region in general. It has to explain the role of their military in the campaign of regime change and democratization. The paternalistic attitude of "father knows best" must be immediately discarded. Secrecy has no place. The opposition must have a two-way communication with the public. If the opposition succeeds to enjoy regional and international support and fails to win the Eritrean people, then, all its efforts are in vain. The Eritrean people must be the number one priority. I understand that the meeting was primarily the restructuring of the organization, but what comes next would be closely scrutinized. The opposition would be in a fish-bawl and the Eritrean people would be observing and examining. The Eritrean people are expecting some tangible steps to be taken in the right direction. New opposition and old oppositions must talk. Unity is in diversity and not in homogeneity. We expect differences but with a little of common sense, some common ground can be established. Can the opposition do that? Is that too much to ask? 

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