Some lies are so charming that it is not fair to call them lies, you have to call them fibs. White lies, they call them, which, incidentally, have the exact opposite meaning of TsaEda Hasot.   We will need a special hasabat Etro and conduct a thorough hangolawi negoda to list them all.  But since this is a column and columns are supposed to be relatively topical, I will stay with three: (1) it is not about power; (2) our diversity is our strength and (3) Less than zero.

It Is Not About Power

“Plurality is not to be assumed without necessity,” in the words of William of Ockham, also known as Ocham’s razor. Whenever people tell you that the obvious reason is not the real reason, the real reason is most probably the obvious reason.     When Clinton was being impeached, every senator who voted for his impeachment said, “it is not about sex, it is about perjury”, to which a wise old senator responded, “anytime they tell you it is not about money, it is about money; anytime they tell you it is not about sex, it is about sex.”

And so, whenever, our politicians fight and say that their fight is not about power struggle, it is about power struggle.   This is not terribly shocking or embarrassing: the very definition of politics is the practice of power.  But don't give your political feuds legal garb.  This is why most people are terribly bored by the EDA's discussion of 50%+1, 75% and 67%: it just sounds like ordinary politics pretending to be about supreme law.

But what is even worse, disingenuous and criminal is to fabricate reasons to criminalize political differences—as happened with the Isaias-G15 feud.  The G-15 (and thousands of citizens) are guilty of unspecified crimes, were tried in imaginary courts, and, if alive, are serving undeclared sentences in unofficial prisons. I don't even know what kind of hell is reserved for politicians who choose to be sacriligious and claim, with a straight face, "For Isaias loved his 11 colleagues so much, he had to make them disappear, because he knows if they are tried, they will surely die."  I feel sorry for those who believe this wicked lie: in 1995, when the "Muslim fundamentalists" were disappeared and their families requested that they be brought to court, the answer they got was, "we are holding them for their own good.  If we bring them to court, they will surely be sentenced to death.  But the new constitution will probably not allow capital punishment, so just be patient." 

It is about power, and that is all. 

Diversity

Another fantastically charming lie is the claim that “our diversity is our strength.”  I will buy our “diversity is our beauty”, or “our diversity is our uniqueness”, or any number of adjectives or adverbs you want to throw to make us feel good about our Eritreanness or to help out the tourism industry.  And, in fact, it is impossible to imagine an Eritrea that is different from the one we know: can’t have the whole without its parts.    I will even concede that a nation that is diverse may have competitive advantages which enable its citizens to have a good relationship--and therefore, good trade, good national security policy with its neighbors. 

But from the perspective of governing a country, diversity is far from strength and is, frankly speaking a pain in the neck.  In moments of stark honesty, we admit this.  I believe it was the Health Minister, Mr. Saleh Meky, who, while addressing the UN Security Council (when we had practically adopted the UIC)  spoke of Somalians as being “blessed” to be of the same faith and same ethnicity.  It was a rare admission of obvious truth and I understood what he was saying perfectly.  It is the “homogenous state” argument, used to explain the economic boom of, say, Japan.  But what is the corollary word to describe heterogeneous nations? What is the opposite of “blessed”?  So how is our diversity strength again?  At best, diversity is our challenge; in the hands of demagogues, our Achilles heel.

Less Than Zero

I am not talking about the book Less Than Zero although, if pressed, I could argue the buzz of that awful 80’s book (a knock off of the great Brights Lights, Big City) was also a lie, and not even a charming one.  But, no, I am talking about the claim that “Eritrea started out from a position of less than zero...it survived a brutal and devastating 30-year war…”

President Isaias Afwerki made that claim for the umpteenth time, most recently to the Chinese journalists who interviewed him or, more accurately, allowed him to filibuster.  If you are not familiar with it, filibuster is a special old man sport played at the US Senate where the rules of the chamber allow a senator to talk for ever just to kill a piece of legislature.  You can stand there and read from the telephone yellow pages (somebody did) or War & Peace (somebody did) and your only aim is to keep on talking until the motion is defeated.  I believe the record is over 24 hours of non-stop jabbering.

But what is Isaias's motivation for filibustering—it is not like he has an interest in trivial matters like law and legislation.  Nor does he have any reason to stall.  There is another reason and teachers will recognize this: you give a comprehensive exam, and there is always that student who is not sure about the answer and over-answers hoping that somewhere in the novella he presented is the answer.  That is Isaias in every interview.

But let’s look at this charming fib: less than zero. True enough, in 1991, Eritrea did emerge from a 30 year war.  Tens of thousands of its citizens were killed, maimed and exiled and a great deal of its infrastructure was destroyed.  But the claim of less than zero negates what was accumulated on the other side of the ledger.

Here’s what else came in 1991: unlike many war-torn nations, Eritrea’s capital city, Asmara, was virtually untouched by the 30 year war.  Unlike other African states, Eritrea’s national identity was real and it trumped atavistic allegiances. Its infrastructure was no worse (in fact, better) than many sub-Saharan African states.  It had a sizable Diaspora with money to invest.  Finally, and most importantly, there was overwhelming goodwill from the citizens to the new government.  A very scientific survey I conducted at the time (talking to 10 people who reflect our diversity, I mean, our strength) showed a 90% approval rate of the government.   The 10% of my sample has been saying, “I told you so” since 1991.

Not only did the government enjoy a huge reservoir of goodwill, but it also had a population that had realistic expectations and were willing to wait: we understood it would take time to place the infrastructures necessary to build a functioning state.  My dear PFDJites, don't insult us: just because you squandered your inheritance doesn’t give you the right to claim it was a meager inheritance.

So, where does this “less than zero” claim come from?  I think it is the human need to show progress, even when there is none, or minimize loss when it is huge.  If you tell a smoker that he smokes too much, he will tell you, “I have actually cut down: I used to smoke two packs a day.”  He used to be an addict; now he is a social smoker.  If you tell anybody they are fat, you better duck because they will deck you.  But if you have the type of friendship that would enable you to get away with it and call them, eh, big-boned, they may reply, “I actually lost weight.  I used to be obese.”
.

Bittersweet

How many found one the following answer from Isaias's interview with the China newsmagazine to be bittersweet:  

"Per capita we could be the wealthiest, I am quiet sure and I am confident we could be the wealthiest. Now of course the reality is not as promising as one can see, but if we can implement programs impacting on the economy of this country and if regional and global circumstances help in a way, definitely with all the drive we have now and the qualities we mentioned earlier about responsible people, hard working people, confident people, you can imagine that. I may not quantitatively say but qualitatively we will be not less than any advanced country in the region. Even the oil rich countries, we may not brag about being as wealthy as those countries per capital. But generally speaking we will be one of the major economic units in this region."

It is bittersweet to anyone who remembers the euphoria of 1991. I am still hanging on and I believe what he said can happen.  But there is a qualifier: he, and the system he put in place, can no longer be in an executive position.  Crown him king, make him the ceremonial president, or the defense minister, but not the chief executive of a nation.  He has been tried and he has failed.  Total failure in all branches of the executive office. If those who are still fans would like to prove us wrong because they believe that he still got it, then let's agree to subject him to the indignity of having to run in an election and allow the people to judge.  Let the people judge.

A nation is entitled to stumble and call itself young at 15. But a president cannot make the same claim of being a novice after being in power, uncontested, for 15 years.  That is not a charming fib--it is just an excuse for failure.

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