It has been a while since the first time I told my story to a group: “a capricious colourful fish which can change its colour to match the need of the day has, in spite of its essence to live in water, began to live in the dry land.  The location as to where this capricious colourful fish lives changes according to its temper.  What is interesting about this fish is its determination to break both the transcendental idea to which it must subordinate itself into and the universal law by which it must guide itself. The question is how long can this fish live in a dry land?”

The question of "how long can this fish live in a dry land?” is indeed an interesting question, and yet not a recondite one; for the choices the capricious colourful fish has is very limited.  Presumably, the best choice it has is to return to its essence.  At this point, my story loses every attention, and the entire attentions shift into the "what then" question.

The "what then" question takes its origin from "what is" and broadens  its domain to embrace "what will be", not in the sense of a year, 10 years or the near future, rather the future as a whole.  The "what is", of course, gained its weight from the tragic collision of subduers of our people and the forces of nature.  The latter have no choice but to endure whatever pain; the former, however, if we had paid attention, if we weren't the victim of our honesty, we could have minimized the "what is".  Both have done enough damage and caused immense pain to our people.  Based on what I witnessed in the course of passage through my own time, it looks like the immense pain is predetermined by a transcendental force upon which the perpetual suffering of our people is grounded, even though there is no such thing, at least within the purview of what is known to me.  The ground for the perpetual suffering lies elsewhere other than in the hands of the transcendental forces.

What I said hints clearly the feeling of guilty with which some of us have to live as a result of our own shortcoming.  Despite all the voices which hinted the "what is", we failed to attend the "what will be" to the level it deserved.  We kept the foreign forces within the range of our view, as we should; however, the "what will be" question" was entirely ignored.  And now, as a result of our guilty feeling, almost like those childish categories which can view light while they are in the centre of darkness, after the sense of things seemed to dwindle away into the vast darkness of the sky, our consciousness as to the necessity for keeping the "what is " and "what will be" within the range of our view is up and running.  Hopefully by now we have learned our painful lesson.

Of course, keeping the "what is" and the "what will be" within the rang of view is a task, for posing the question "what then" which embraces the “what is and what will be" compels one not only to pose the question, but also to take a stand on it.  Taking stand on it means putting the forces which may get their turn on the XYZ day into view without losing overview of "what is" today.  In brief, the “what then" question leads to what will be in the future, the future of our homeland and its people.  Thus, the scope of the "what then" question broadens its own domain, namely it compels one to retain in view what is in the present by which the future of our people will be influenced.  In case, the economy of my words fail to provide an inkling of what I'm talking about, I'm talking about our leaders, more succinctly, the leadership of the opposition forces, hereafter political elite (PE)

The Political Elite (PE)

My concern is this: the freedom of our people has been sent down the path of annihilation for at least more than a century (Source: Awate's Editorial "Be the Alternative You Seek").  And in spite of this, the PE has failed to organize itself and its resources according to the demands of the people.  Instead, it has fragmented into very tiny groups.  The size of these groups is relevant, and what is more relevant is how these groups are put together.  In view of this the "what then" question gains more importance, for the way they are put together dictates the melody of the future, "the will be", so to say.

For the reasons stated above, we have to undertake a discussion with respect to the state of our political elite in order to penetrate into its state and to put the "what then" question where it should be.  Thus, the "what then" question demands that we gather the facts which could enable us to carry on the discussion upon which the on what ground are these various groups grouped could be determined and why they grouped in the manner they are could be brought to light.  At this point I'm not even sure whether the prevailing ideologies of this new 21st century are even issues for them.  The word democracy is beautifully written in their programs; however, the word as such has no meaning unless it is supported by the action and direction toward which the various groups are travelling. 

Presumably, most of us know that only actions taken by the political groups can produce effects, the effectiveness of which, in return, is measured not by the groups themselves, rather their people.

Within the scope of the task which I assigned to my self and with the intention of what has been enunciated up to this point, namely gathering facts, I read Awate's Editorial "Be the Alternative You Seek.”  And indeed not only has it given me necessary information, but it has also provoked me to share my reaction.  Clearly this is beyond what I had in mind before I read Awate's Editorial.  What I yet have to assess is how a single sentence not even a complex one, rather simple of three words can cause my departure from the locus, which I denoted as the locus of reclusiveness. 

Furthermore, if I were to ask my self as to why such sentence has so profound message to which going-to-its-roots became ineluctable, at this point I have no answer.  In this case, going-to-its-roots means taking the whole issue into view. Hopefully, as we progress in our discussion, the reason which necessitated to the going-to-its-roots somehow becomes clear.

Acceptance vs Endurance

In light of the aforementioned and my wish for the age of today to achieve more, I would like to share my reading of "Iziwin Kihalef iyu", irrespective whether my attempts will lead to any fruitful thinking or will have any considerable effects.  The first step of my attempt is to add some clarification to Awate’s statement: 

Consequently, some Eritreans have taken a fatalistic approach to enduring oppression: just wait it out. "Like his predecessors," they say, "Isaias Afwerki will rule for a number of years, a number which is pre-ordained by God, then he will follow them and a new king will rule us.  Iziwin Kihalef iyu. 

True, the unendurable condition in which our people are projected into may pressure some individual citizens to hint some signs of enduring oppression; however, in view of the essence of freedom and humanity’s potential for liberty, what is uttered may not correspond to what their choice is.  No doubt, their unendurable condition has impacted their thinking to be absorbed by the condition they are projected into.  As a result, some members of our society may hint endurance of coercion in order to make it through the most difficult time in which they are living.  Thus, from this viewpoint and when we consider what freedom means in the light of its essence, it will not be beyond our comprehension to understand what is uttered during the day light is not the same to what is uttered in the darkness of the night. In short, one attempts to tolerate oppression only as long as one is projected into it by force and especially when one notes that there is no prospect in view to end one’s suffering.  This is the case in our homeland.

To be sure, the validity of the statement we placed within the range of our view is not questioned at all, and in fact I fully concur with what is condensed in it.  And yet, I'm concerned when such statement is made at the level of Awate without additional clarification, the intended message could be diverted and could be easily subject to misinterpretation.  Additionally, if I were to think that in great despair people accept the man-made fates and fortunes with all the weight these two words carry, from the inner part of their essence, certainly, this would resemble my misunderstanding of the essence of freedom; for freedom is the property of human kind, hence it bears on everyone of us.  This makes impossible to even think that there is a faculty or possibility in the essence of human kind which will allow acceptance of oppression, rather the possibility to tolerate it tentatively.

I think whenever we bring the issue of freedom into view, it is important first to be free from the twisted doctrine of the past.  To discern what I'm attempting to hint and to minimize juxtaposing the issue of freedom with that of the political jargon and its doctrine of the past, and to further illuminate it, let us consider Kant’s decisive work.

Kant:  

“By freedom in the cosmological sense, I understand the faculty of beginning a state from itself, the causality of which does not in turn stand under any another cause determining it in time in accordance with the law of nature.  Freedom in this significance is a pure transcendental idea, which, first contains nothing borrowed from experience, and second, the object of which also cannot be given determinately in any experience, because it is a universal law.  It is especially noteworthy that it is this transcendental idea of freedom on which the practical concept of freedom is grounded.  Freedom in the practical sense is the independence of the power of choice from necessitation by impulses of sensibility.  The human power of choice is indeed an arbitrium sensitivum (sensible power of choice), yet not brutum (animal) but liberum (free) because sensibility does not render its action necessary, but in the human being there is a faculty of determining oneself from oneself, independently of necessitation by sensible impulse.  The abolition of transcendental freedom would also simultaneously eliminate all practical freedom”. 

Now, if we take Kant's work into consideration and interface what is included in  Awate’s Editorial: 

Consequently, some Eritreans have taken a fatalistic approach to enduring oppression: just wait it out. “Like his predecessors," they say, "Isaias Afwerki will rule for a number of years, a number which is pre-ordained by God, then he will follow them and a new king will rule us."  Iziwin Kihalef iyu"  

into it, we obtain this result: even though members of our society may not have the theoretical knowledge to perceive as to what the essence of human freedom is and as to what the property of human freedom means, by which, in any case, their essence is impacted, what has been uttered clearly indicates not a sign of accepting oppression, rather their yearning for freedom.

Thus, freedom as a transcendental idea bears on each of us irrespective whether we have theoretical knowledge of it or not.  "Freedom is the breath of life", as they say.

Therefore, based on what is stated above my rereading of the ubiquitous and rampantly proliferating sentence to which too belatedly I’m attempting to somehow limit its dissemination, I read not a sign of accepting oppression, rather the will to be free ("Iziwin Kihalef iyu").

Going-to-its-roots

At the outset I intimated the necessity to inquire more into what is demanded by "Iziwin Kihalef iyu", what going-to-its-roots means: taking the whole issue into our view, and the decisiveness of the leading question. In order for as to bring the whole issue into view, let us pose three not very striking questions:

1. Has the PE taken a stand on the issue of freedom and its authentic ranking?  If yes what evidence do we have to support its standing? 

2. Is there any evidence at the political market place hinting that the PE has left the age of conflict/power struggle behind?

3. On what basic principles are the groups grouped or how are they put together?

These questions are not merely expressions of a critical cast of mind, rather very decisive toward the indication of the destiny of our homeland and its people.

By posing these not-very-striking questions we want to gain an overview with respect of the current state and the direction of the PE and its community as a whole, in spite of every distinction and difference which exist between them.  Owing to this distinction and difference, we therefore should keep in mind the main task of the PE separate from that of the political community as a whole.  The former has the leading function.  Hence, in case the PE find itself lost in its own unwholesomeness and blindness of its thinking or has not left the age of power struggle, then until it remedies its illness one cannot expect an elevated concept of struggle from it.

Therefore, if we wish to discover where the problem of our homeland and its people lay today and hint the direction of the “what then" question, we should always keep in mind as to whether the PE finds itself in utter blindness and unwholesomeness of its own thinking or it is not.  For this reason, at any time of the day, I suppose, we should hold any move the PE makes within the range of our view.

Additionally, in order for us to create a vantage point for our discussion, I would like to offer the following clues or basic orientation we may or may not like to consider:

• The Addis’s fiasco
• The total number of the political groups which the market place of our Political Community have created so far. 

  The Addis Fiasco: During the last meeting of EDA in Addis, we learned that the leaders of the various political groups were able to agree on what should be included in their charter; however, they could not agree to elect those who should implement what is written in their charter. As a result they are now dived into two major groups (EDA and EDA-1).  What does this not-new-but-old trend indicate?   

  Number of Political Groups: A while ego, Awate shared its study of our homeland's political organizations. Based on this study, the political community's market place has the below listed groups on its current list: 

  1.       ELF-RC
  2.       EDP
  3.       SALVATION
  4.       ELF
  5.       IKHLAS
  6.       ISLAH

  7.       KUNAMA
  8.       SAGEM
  9.       AFAR
  10.     EFDM
  11.     NAHDA
  12.     CONGRESS
  13.     EPM
  19.     (Plus Apx. six more Political Organizations)

  The first 11 groups attended the meeting which was held in Addis.  The rest eight were either not invited or were not interested to attend the Addis's meeting.

  Whether all these 19 groups attended EDA meeting or not; whether any group joined EDA or not, whether they group themselves in blocks or not; whether they have a charter signed by all of them or not, plays no role whatsoever in our discussion. Nor does it play any positive function with respect to the future of our homeland and its people.  For as long as each group retains its own organization, it has the freedom to turn away or turn to an umbrella organization; it has the freedom to arm itself; it has the freedom to misuse sensitive issues for its own purpose; it has the freedom to initiate conflict; it even has the freedom to be another PFDJ.  Therefore, if the PE has anything good in its thinking, it has to begin reorganizing itself according to the prevailing ideologies of this 21st century practiced in many countries of Africa; in the Occident; in the Orient.

  Liberated in the light of its task

  To be sure, what I have discussed so far is not intended to guide us to mere toying with sentences, rather to prepare us for the single leading question which was announced by the title (leading only within the scope of what is being questioned into) to which every question posed so far and every question we may pose with respect to the current state of the PE must subordinate into it.  Since we have questioned our way through in order to obtain an overview of where the PE stands, we can now pose the question in a more specific manner: is the PE liberated in light of its task? If not what is imminent?  The word “task” embraces the task of restating the people’s freedom and its authentic ranking.

  We posed the leading question in spite of our knowledge that there is no study from which we can provide the answer it seeks.  And yet, if we do not question we remain in agreement with the direction of the PE.  This means if we do not question, then not only do we remain in agreement with the current direction the PE is heading to, but also adhere to its direction with all the adverse consequences for our homeland and its people.

  As we may have noted, the leading question has two parts. Whether the first or the second part of the question is posed or not, for the PE it may not make any difference at all; the vigour of its life flows unhindered.  But for us, there is no choice but to pose the leading question because the future of our homeland and its people is at stake.  Indeed, if we wish our people something better than more disunity, more conflict, and more poverty, then it makes a difference for us whether we pose the leading question or not.

  In any case, the leading question has been posed.  But where do we stand now?  I suppose, we stand at nowhere not even at the beginning of the necessary discussion.  This means, we have not yet started the necessary research and discussion required by the task ahead of us.  Regrettably, I do not have all the facts required either to provide the answer which the leading question seeks or to carry on the discussion of the "what then" question in order to determine whether the dream expressed by "Iziwin Kihalef iyu" has any chance to be reality.

  From this point on, the leading question "is the PE liberated in light of its task, if not what is imminent?" opens up its door for any one interested and especially for the overseers of freedom and its authentic ranking.  In light of the current state of the PE, I see the scope of the task of the overseers of freedom expanding.

  When a political elite of any given country is not liberated in the light of its task—that is, either to ensure or restate the people's freedom and its authentic ranking-- the result is the same as what we are witnessing somewhere between the Mediterranean Sea and the Jordan River: namely, the conflict between the political elite of the Palestinian people.  Regrettably, in spite of the Palestinian people's very long struggle, the political elite on both sides of the front (Hamas and Fatah) is not yet liberated in the light of its task.  This is the first example needed to give our leading question more weight.

  The second example is that of our own, namely PFDJ.  Based on the actions it has taken and the results it has produced since it came to power, in spite its long years of struggle, it has not yet perceived freedom in its essence—that is, in its "cosmological sense (pure transcendental idea) on which the practical concept of freedom is grounded".  As a result it is hovering itself lost in the unwholesomeness and blindness of its own thinking. It lives by this accommodation and thereby it is travelling at fast speed to the point of cutting its own throat.  The darkness of the precinct in which the PFDJ's elite live is indeed much darker.

  I mentioned above that "I see the scope of the task of the overseers of freedom (our thinkers and poets insofar as they are willing to invest their time and fortitude in the service of their people) expanding".  By this what I have in mind is this: in case they determine that our political elite is not liberated in the light of its task, reconditioning the conditioned PE is an enormous task.

  Hopefully, the decisiveness and broadness of the leading question and the answer it seeks is somehow clear.