Have you ever tried to use a cord or a string but then found that it is too short to reach the electrical outlet because it is tangled into so many knots?  Do you take the time to untangle the knots or do you look for another cord?  Is it even possible to untie the knots�if every time you untangle one you create another tangle?  This is the question facing those who support the EDA, an opposition umbrella group that rightfully believes that the only way to defeat tyranny is by tying resources end-to-end but has, in the process, created so many knots it finds itself in a virtual paralysis.  This issue of the Pencil will deal with one suggestion of making the EDA a leaner, more effective organization.

The first thing that needs to be said is to state the obvious: it is hard to make Alliances work.  Thus, this editorial should not be read as if its writers are criticizing or condemning the EDA leadership.  Anybody who has ever been in a leadership position of even the smallest organization knows that it is not easy to manage an organization using democratic principles. It is exponentially harder to do it with many�yet, that is the only way to bring about change in Eritrea and in the shortest time possible.   

The Challenges

The challenges facing the EDA are many�an unfavorable international political scene that favors the stability of dictatorships over the uncertainty of change; a region that is not endowed with liberal democratic principles; and a population that is exhausted from fighting and turned off by politics.

Then there are factors that are unique to the Eritrean experience.  During the armed struggle, the slogan of �the Eritrean field can only accommodate one front� was espoused by whoever had, or was perceived to have, the military might.  And, post-independence, the victorious PFDJ proscribed a one-party state.   Perhaps in over-reaction to that, we now have a reality where there is only one party in Eritrea and over a dozen in the Diaspora.

At this stage, it is unhelpful (and irrelevant) to discuss how these parties came into being.  What is relevant is that the multiplicity of the organizations is making progress hard:  their sizes are too insignificant to have an impact in the current struggle against an entrenched oppressor; they are run on part time basis by people who have full time jobs and live scattered around the globe; their resources are limited. The multiplicity of the organizations exasperates a crucial factor of running organizations on the basis of democratic principles: that of proportional representation.  The combination of their willingness to accept just about anyone which calls itself a party and the reluctance of each organization to share the roster of its membership reduces the concept of proportional representation a wild guess.

When the EDA broached the subject in its founding meeting, it settled on a 2:1 formula: large organizations would be given 2 votes and small organizations would be given 1 vote.   This begged the obvious question: in the absence of membership rosters, what is the definition of �large� and �small�? Is having military presence a pre-requisite to being large?  Is it number of branch offices?  Is it staying power?  Is it diplomatic and international presence?  Is it prominence of the leadership?

The Eritrean Federal Democratic Movement found the answers it was given unconvincing but chose to abide by its ruling while registering its reservation.  Conversely, it is not inconceivable that some of the large organizations would find that their vote is the equal of two small organizations a mockery of proportional representation.

In addition to the difficulty of assigning number of votes, and then reaching a majority vote on anything, there is also yet another holdover from the Armed Struggle era: rule by consensus. Consensus-building is an admirable goal but it is also not only time-consuming but also, for reasons stated below, a near impossibility on many issues.

The Problem With �Minimum Programs�

In addition to the issue of proportional representation, there is also the issue of �lowest common denominator� which poses a challenge for the EDA.   The premise is this: as long as one is committed to bringing about change in Eritrea, then that organization should be welcome to the EDA.  What separate the organizations� core principles�secular vs non-secular; decentralized vs autonomous; armed vs peaceful�are deferred in pursuit of a united front approach.

This is in theory.  In practice, the differences may reach a stage of being so unpalatable that they bring about paralysis: the member organizations are too turned off by the beliefs of the other organizations to make any progress, and too afraid to risk condemnation by withdrawing from EDA. Issues are deferred or abandoned until the next meeting�by which time, there is hope that �something� will have changed in the interim to change the dynamics.  Meanwhile, there is paralysis.

Our Proposal

There is a way out of this�but it is a bit radical.  We ask that it be given serious consideration before it is dismissed off-hand as an impossible goal.  We ask people to temporarily forgo an important identity�their affiliation with their organizations.

Eritrea definitely deserves more than one party�but not 16. Political parties are supposed to be based on programs, and not on individuals. Political parties are supposed to present the people clearly delineated differences and a vision of the future�and not tactical differences and history lessons.  Fewer, larger organizations�unified and separated on the basis of shared or disparate programs-- can present the people choices beyond �minimum programs,� which cannot inspire fealty.

In our view, there have been three and only three distinct programs and visions that have been put forward to the people so far:

1.  Parties that advance a secular program with national emphasis: These parties believe that Eritrea should be governed by secular principles. Although they espouse a decentralized form of government, they see Eritrea as a whole made up of its traditional provinces.       

2.  Parties that advance a federal program:  These parties believe that the parts, the provinces/regions of Eritrea make up the whole. They are for empowering provinces and regions and towards that end, they make recommendations on re-organizing the provinces/regions on the basis of shared values/history of the inhabitants of the regions. 

3. Islamist Parties:  These parties believe that Eritreans (presumably Muslim Eritreans) must be given the choice of being governed in accordance with Islamic principles.  They say they are committed to democracy and want to compete in freely contested elections.

While we agree that this is a gross simplification of the three political programs, we hold to the view that a lot of the �differences� that the political parties mention to justify their existence are also grossly exaggerated.

As a sample, we invite our readers to review the programs of the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF), the Eritrean Liberation Front � Revolutionary Council (ELF-RC), the Eritrean Democratic Party (EDP) and the newly emerging Eritrean Salvation Front and to see if they can find any discernable difference.  From our reading, there is none. The only thing that sustains these parties as distinct entities are their unique histories.

Overcoming History

All future-oriented organizations must at some point try to give up their history for the common good. In our view there is no reason at all why the ELF, ELF-RC, EDP and the ESF cannot merge into one organization.  If what matters is the program and the vision�as opposed to the individuals---then there is no reason at all why they shouldn�t. Tactical differences should not rise to the level of strategic importance.   If this recommendation was followed, the emerging parties would become the home of all Eritreans who want to get rid of the one-party system and replace it with a national government that is secular and based on multi party system and democratic principles.

Similarly, there is no reason why parties who believe in a federal/autonomous system�whether it is based on land or people�should not merge to form a political bloc.  This emerging bloc would be the home of all Eritreans who want to get rid of the one-party system and replace it with a federal system of governance where as much power as possible devolves to the regions or nationalities.

Finally, to the best of our understanding, the Islamist parties are trying to make sure that in a post-PFDJ government, the right for Eritreans to choose a political party that bases its program entirely on the tenets of their religious beliefs, should not be abridged.   Not only do we think that the two Islamist groups do not have sufficiently different programs to justify having two Islamist parties, we also believe that, in the future, if a political party were to emerge whose program espoused explicitly Christian values, then it should join this bloc.

The unity among like-program organizations should be full and immediate. There should not be anything called minimum program agreement among those who are supposed to unite, for they cannot justify to the stake-holders what their differences really are.

This will pave the way for the emergence of a true multi-party democracy and the ballot box will decide who forms the government once the transitional period is over. At this moment, all efforts should be directed towards defeating the oppressive regime.

Then What?

How will the creation of the three blocs to replace the sixteen organizations help with the issue of proportional representation, recruiting new members and establishment of a fact-based alliance? 

Once the three blocs are created, it won�t be hard to know which organizations are large and which organizations are small.  Right now, the name is defining the size: for example, an organization that has �Islam� in its name can now claim to represent all Muslims.  With the creation of the mergers, size would be transparent.  

It would also make recruitment of new membership easier because it would eliminate major hardships: (1) organizers would no longer have to spend  a great deal of time justifying the presence of 16 organizations and (2) organizers would no longer have to spend precious time making apologies and explaining political programs that they themselves don�t believe in.

With a more democratic proportional representation incentivizing them to recruit new members, the three different blocs can then have a permanent Alliance, one that is not based on a minimum programs. They can focus more of their time and energy on what really matters�organizing new recruits�and coordinating their activities.

If we are to avoid the fate of Palestine, Somalia and others, the EDA should treat as a top priority the subordination of the disparate military wings to a central leadership.  Only by doing this can we plant the seeds for a non partisan national army and avoid the perils of �military pluralism.�

Leaders Should Lead

Yet another byproduct of the Armed Struggle, particularly after Isaias Afwerki turned into a full-fledged dictator and transformed Eritrea into a police state, is that the Eritrean psyche is bruised and nobody wants to give too much power to leaders.

But the situation cannot be reversed by its opposite extreme: weak leaders empowered to do nothing. 

Many leaders act as followers when they should lead. Once a leader gets a mandate to lead, he should not be checking his back worried about how his followers will react to his decisions: that is not a leader but a simple messenger. Only confident, mandated, trusted leaders can face the oppressive regime.  Organizational cadres are expected to support their leaders and be loyal to them, and not blackmail them.

For example, the National Salvation Front will consummate its merger in July 06�a full two years after it announced its agreement-in-principle to merge.  There is a way out of that. Many of the organizations we mentioned above are having national congresses and unity congresses fairly soon.  We invite the delegation to elect leaders who are fully empowered to pursue unity talks with organizations who share their political beliefs.

Leaders should be fully mandated to execute unity-directed decisions without waiting for a congress.  We also suggest that the congress make necessary provisions to accommodate changes in the structure that might be necessitated due to mergers and uniting of organizations.  We have no reason to believe that any of the constituenties of the opposition organizations would object to such provisions for victory since unity has always been the demand of the Eritrean people.

Dictatorships are efficient�they are efficient in making good and disastrous decisions.  Democracy is slower and messier.  Those of us who choose democracy over dictatorship do so knowing fully well that the democratic process is slower, and more frustrating but, in the end, more respectful of the dignity and worth of citizens. And in democracies, unlike in dictatorships, we don�t wait for change to come from the whim of the dictator, but from the calls of the people.  The people want the political organizations united and they cannot understand why we have 16 organizations when we don�t have 16 different visions.  The people want change, but they do not understand why bringing about change takes so long.   

The recommendations we put forth may be radical but they are the best way to disentangle the knots of the Alliance.  The knots will not be untied by waiting and they won�t be fixed by tinkering around the edges�a sure way to create more knots.

Thank you in advance for your comments: This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it

Discuss this article