A great conspiracy was carried out and is working, even now as you read about it here. It is the conspiracy, which finds its objective, in altering the Eritrean People’s consciousness, and fake their understanding; to a degree, this is exactly what  happened among a portion of the Eritrean intelligentsia. The project was, simply, to implant the idea that the peoples of Eritrea are not ready for Democracy, it goes without saying that the implication is that tyranny is the necessary lesser evil to embrace as a way of avoiding the ignorance of the people!

Have you ever seen such a crooked fallacy? Have you ever seen such a vain judgement? One is then supposed to believe this, if only he believes that for fear of a crime happening in a village, the whole inhabitants are under strict arrest, indefinitely, until such a time is at hand when we are certain that the speculated crime will never take place.

There, included in this fallacy, is another more subtle fallacy: equating Justice to Democracy, as opposed to Democracy being a mechanism for managing Justice.

This would make it possible for the tyrant, who essentially is a powerful thief, to plunder the land and its inhabitants while equating himself to other competing political parties, and falsely claiming that he is fighting his opponents fairly in a battle of political nature, eclipsing the fact of the reality that the war between him and his opponents is a war between a powerful thief and four million oppressed and terrorized Eritreans. It is important, in this context, to remember that the antidote of tyranny is not Democracy. Justice is.

Yet, many Eritreans fell to this logic and succumbed to their illusions for years now and, even then, with no scathe to this weird fallacious doctrine. Alongside its logical failure, this doctrine suffers from acute amnesia. It forgets that the people, who it now is dubbing ignorant of so clear and bright meaning as justice, are the same people who fought for over half a century for the cause of justice. And what is Justice to Democracy if not what the mother is to the daughter.
-

Democracy is a way of approaching Justice. Democracy, among other elements, is a subset of Justice. Understanding this may have been the reason behind the proposal, sometime ago, by Ustaz Saleh Younis, to change the title of the struggle for Democracy into the struggle for Justice. As per this understanding Democracy is a way, and there is a combination of ways, to manage the laws as agreed upon by members of the freely elected representatives of the people.

Related to the above discussed concepts is one with practical implications and lasting effect if taken into consideration as a component of the struggle for justice. This concept is formulated by the response offered to the questions: Has the PFDJ regime and its boss enough legitimacy to deal on behalf of the  people a matter as serious as border delimitation and demarcation at this point in time? Is any document signed by the regime, now, representing anything except the regime’s interest? Is the regime’s interest congruent with the interests of the Eritrean nation? 

Indications prefer the negativity of these questions. Is it then, now, the time for the Eritrean opposition to pluck out the card of the border and demarcation question from the hands of the tyrant, or at least make it less useful for his survival by intruding itself between the players? How can this be done?

Further, in reply to these questions, one would say that the reason behind the expectation of analysts and informed media of the deposition or resignation of regimes in the aftermath of exposing their nations to misconceived military adventures or failed wars has rational and psychological grounds. It is not a punishment to the regime which led to the catastrophe that it should resign or be deposed; it is only a measure for the protection of the nation’s interests and prevention of disintegration and disorder, and ….

What is greater disorder there than tyranny is? A regime which leads the nation to war is tacitly accepting its political bankruptcy, that it had hit the wall, that it has ran out of political vision and that is precisely why that such a regime cannot be part of the post-war arrangements. This is entirely natural and can be explained, rather precisely, as lack of political capital as the “going to war"  affair has proven beyond doubt. The regime in question knows that, and tries to blind the population by subjecting them to naked power and excessive force to project authority which he lost along with the war but ends up only projecting repetitive use of naked power. The regime perceiving that he can not extract legitimacy this way but is satisfied with terror as replacement.

This is the exact situation in which the Eritrean regime found itself in the aftermath of the border war and it is also the predicament which the Eritrean people is struggling to disentangle from. There could be still one who wants to confront this point of view by saying that the Eritrean regime didn’t lose the war because it is still kicking and screaming here and there. To such a fallacy, no detailed definitions of achieving war goals, and the difference between total and limited wars and how victory and loss is related to either is needed. Pointing to the painful fact of the Eritrean youth preferring to risk their lives and die in the depths of far away seas or preyed upon by beasts in remote deserts and the criminal indifference of the ruling regime, only makes clear to all who to see how much legitimacy is left for the PFDJ regime: NULL. 

Yet, as it is clear from their latest congress, the Eritrean Democratic Alliance in Addis, it seemed, that we are still conferring unwarranted legitimacy to the tyranny of the PFDJ where by now we should have transcended such contradictions. Instead of:

“8.     Called on Eritrea and Ethiopia to adhere to the border commission ruling and resolve their differences peacefully and to lower the tension along their common border;”

The conference should have tried to, politically, implanting and installing itself as a player in the game, qualified as representatives of a wide sector of the Eritrean people, and in fact, with little effort, of more credible legitimacy claim. It would have been politically wiser had the conference declared its preference of freezing the border demarcation problem indefinitely; recognizing anything pertaining to the problem only up to the day when the international court formally disclosed the maps and both Eritrea and  Ethiopia confirmed their commitment to it, but postponing further processing until such a time comes when Eritrean People are empowered to select their representatives, who can then do all the necessary transactions in behalf of the people.

This situation, this writer believes, is wise and perhaps is legally sound. There are also political benefits reaped for the opposition in such a political moves not the least of which is that it could cause a dent on the regime’s body-politic. Such a move could also limit and relieve the opposition from pressures and interferences attempted by foreign forces. It is time that the opposition camp shows authority, responsibility, and wisdom.