“The future which holds in trust for our own children will be shaped by our fairness.”  (Marian W. Edelman)      

Introduction

As a practitioner of politico-mimicry and a perceptive observer in the current struggle, I have been following the writing of Yosief G/hiwet, specifically the most debated topic “romanticizing Ghedli.” I could not help, but I could share my perspectives on the topic he raised. Let me start with the following core belief I stood by: We can not meet the future either by mere gross criticism or by mere silly philosophical sentimentalism. Above all, we can not meet the future, if we attempt to balance gross criticism in action by silly diversionist stand in theory. Furthermore, as a consumer of information and advocator of “timely oriented-issue”, I loathe one sided argument.

Yosief is a maverick intellectual analyst. However, his journey of intellectual endeavor on Eritrean nationalism and identity is not without missteps. He has the caliber to manipulate the sources of public opinion, but he failed to play through judicious use of his capital. It was a “gotcha factor” of politics that he endured during his exercise in reflecting the negativities of our ghedli. As a humble advice, I would have preferred him to scoop from the positive reservoir of our history and fight toward the “front loading issue” of our time. Despite that fact, I am still reluctant to believe that he has those stripes of fiber in his capital of historical knowledge.

Quiet frankly, there is no reason to keep our history under “lock and key”, but there is a plausible reason to save love for our country and our people by respecting the “positive aspect of ghedli and the sacrifice made to secure a sovereign Eritrea.” Indeed sovereign Eritrea of today is the product of our Ghedli and the ultimate sacrifice of its heroic people. Nonetheless, the recklessness of the Eritrean regime, the lack of democracy, and justice will never change the reality – “Eritrea as sovereign nation”.  Before I delve to dissect his premises and his arguments, I would like to say though, “Never mistake a clear prudential view for a defensive posture,” for I am doing these arguments without the colors of accusation attributed by Yosief in his approach of arguments. Further more, and to make it clear, I am neither enacting a “shield-politics” nor giving “a barbed response” to protect the Eritrean people from knowing their own history. Sooner or later they will have it with all its facets compiled by historians. What is important to all of us now is to acknowledge that the era of jebha and shaebia is over as history with the conclusion of our army struggle for Eritrean independence in 1991. Since then, I have declared my self as independent without any political entity, but remain as political activist as well as advocator for human right and justice.

In this essay we will observe prospectively and retrospectively (a) how Yosief’s conceptual theory is applicable to ghedli’s history (b) locate the “theme of his essay” and look whether it has relevance with the title he chose (c) whether his “supporting arguments” corresponds to the observed information (data) on the ground (d) the intent and purpose of the terminologies from the readers end as pro and con (e) whether it has a negative or positive impact to the current struggle. In doing so, I will try to put history in prospective as I observed on the ground, not in detail but within the proximity of his assertion. Though I do believe it is not the right time and space to come forward until the epic battle against the tyranny is over, it is incumbent for those of us who gave part of our life to ghedli, to act accordingly once it is brought into the stage. If any “ahas” lurk unbidden on the civil war and killing of the democratic elements during the ghedli era, they were and are in the shadow until history allows the process of reconciliation and justice to prevail.

 Sustained arid political exercise

History will remember us by the “trust quotient” we build within our societies and the positive “quotient field” we create among our communities. These qualifiers are a challenge to every citizen who strives to bring a fundamental change in our practice of politics. Anyone who wanted to discuss the above social concept must consider the following factors into equation to come into sensible plausible argument (a) the “perception gap” between the highlanders and lowlanders (b) the geographical barriers to bridge the perceptions; fore instance our people in Middle East and Western countries (c) The cultural influence from these geographical barriers (c) and other social problems without going into detail. Yosief have miserably failed to meet these qualifiers as one who believe to bring a solution to the current quagmire of Eritrean politics. Instead of bridging the past to the present, the present to the future, and the old generation to the new generation, he wanted us to cry on the failures of ghedli of the 60s and 70s as “backward survivalist” always attempted to live. Indeed his argument has offered a bulls-eye for those who gave their honest lives to liberate our people and our nation from foreign subjugation.

Yosief’s arid political exercise has crossed the red-line when he characterized ghedli: according his words, it was “the monster ghedli that create the culture of martyrdom.” Painting ghedli as a monster shape-shifter is based on a “diagnostically hypothetical intent.” As a matter of fact this was the sustained metaphorical foundation as well as thematic treatment of his politico-historical argument. Was Ghedli a historical necessity to answer the quest of Eritrean people for self-determination? For the majority Eritrean it was absolutely yes. The Eritrean Teghadelti (fighters) had not a fuzzy and discordant dream. Contrary to his claim, as nationalists they had a set of mission with oriented goal, defined within the call of its time, to liberate Eritrea from foreign subjugation. At the same time, when it is set and done, will exercise the democratic experience of the federation era in the 50s. Yosief do not need to be reminded that every epoch of history ascribed by its time and space has its own specific call. The Eritrean people compelled by history did answer for the “timely call” and accordingly to liberate their land. Back then, the army had not in mind to establish good governance. They were conscious that it is not the duty of ghedli to decide what kind of government the Eritrean people to have. However, the conscious fighters, which Yosief haven’t clue about them, had an idea of coalition of transitional government that could transform into constitutional government. Evidently there was a struggle within the struggle which I will loosely touch on it in the second part of this essay.

No wonder, he evoked an everyman quality to the debate, be it in the internet media or in a friendly gathering everywhere. However, I am pretty sure a legal-journalist and a seasonal politician will tell us that yousief’s current political impulse will not help us to find the current nexus of the Eritrean problem. His recent essay will not add value or influence to the current struggle. Aside to his stiff and arid approach, he has also neglected his own calling by shifting his attention to untimely multitude pursuits. Case to a point, his brilliant call to focus on “a time oriented issue” wasn’t out of our grip let alone one to forget.

Courting and persecuting ghedli

The tragedian Euripides told us as follows: “Nothing harms the state than the tyrant.” He alluded aptly that there are no laws which belong to all as a common property in the first place. Instead, one man rules by keeping the law in his own hands for himself alone, and that means there is no equality and justice. This is the reality of Eritrea today as there were in Athens in the 5^th and 4^th centuries B.C. 

Tyranny does not sprout from ghedli only but also from any political background. Old Soviet, North Korea, Iraq…. etc are the living examples as vectors which illustrate the varieties of backgrounds that allowed the birth of tyranny in their historical evolvement. If it weren’t ghedli there are always other means, unless the elites prepare the public to maintain their resistance for any kind of eventualities of that nature. Our elites, instead of admitting their failure (including himself) to do their shares before it happens, they are trying to levy criticism every thing against ghedli. Of course there are many failures during the ghedli era that will be accounted to the public, not in this forum for public consumption, but to observe justice and reconciliation that brings unity and stability for Eritrean people inside. Giving Eritrean back their history is not enough with ending tyranny on Eritrean people, but it should be high-to-do-reflect the process how to erect a constitutional government that respect democracy, justice and due process.

Yosief as an activist against Ghedli have launched unjustified swipe on all fronts, even undermining the “resonant slogans” of the ghedli era such as resistance (tsinat), patriotism (hagerawinet), patience (tessewarenet), and dedication (tewfayenet). After all you can not ask citizen for any kind of resistance without these resonant slogans for any movement to survive and thrive. The sad part of it is distorting the meaning of “revolution.” Critically, revolution in all our debate is only attached to socialist-oriented change to avoid any revolutionary engagement. Revolution whatever it may be, it is a movement for fundamental change against the statuesque. In our case it was a popular movement to change the status of our nation and our people.

Sad as it may be, for those war handicapped heroic Eritreans, to hear such argument of nullifying their contribution for ghedli, except to create the “culture of martyrdom,” is a perverted claim at worst. Notwithstanding, I am pretty sure it will not find a resonance in the public sphere. For Yosief there were no risks and forced recognitions in this matter. If he really believes on it as a “free conscious believer” that it is in the common good of Eritrean people, he could have done it when we were in the process of army struggle. Many Eritreans have done it. History will judge both side’s position in due time. However, romanticizing ghedli part-I justified where he stands when he denies “Eritrean nationalism” as he put it “a product of concocted myth by Ghedli.” [I will try to give a balanced appraisal on his historical intake in part-II of the this essay which includes the chorus of his strategy, episodes neatly illustrated, and history in the service of public good.]

Unfair to be fair

Ironically, he has put a brave face on the setbacks by insisting that ghedli has no larger national positive implications. That is an apriority perceptual result of his method, structure and use of analysis. The way his analysis slice up the failure of ghedli without the wholesome picture of its history, was ultimately a matter of preference on his side. It does not drive from, but is a presupposition of the nexus of revolutionary critics that comes from the other end. His analysis don’t necessary reflect the empirical results of ghedli. They are more an index of his perceptual attitudes, presumptions, and incomplete intellectual diaries. More importantly, it is not fair to blur the call of Ghedli at that time and mix with our failures of being unable to resolve the problem of our time.

Granted, that was all his academic exercise to the best of my knowledge, no one has yet subjected him to a qualified historian rigor. He has attempted as a “plain field historian” by bringing all the ills of EPLF and ELF to show his fairness, for which many commentators have applauded him. What the public had missed though, that he denounced ghedli in totality (remember the monster ghedli). His collection is not all truisms when you see the totality of ghedli. Surprisingly, neither one asked him nor did he come himself why he is doing this at this time, when the Eritrean people are confused on what should be done. Hence it is appropriate for me to ponder with these questions: What was the purpose of doing that? Then what? Why is these blanket accusations? Is he leaving as the traditional maxim says “throw it I will catch it?” If that is the case, then the public have to struggle in answering those questions at least those who supported his premises. Without doing that it becomes a “premises” without “conclusion” anyway. We need causal explanations rather than argument from him. Once he has a solid reporting he should have a conclusion to what we should have done.

Though, Yosief sometimes seem to forget that justices served are even more important than “transitory criticism of the moment”, he ought to understand that, so often “intuitive instruction exercise” has limits when the common collective interest rules. As brilliant as he is, he should not miss this truth at least from a prudent strategy point of view. For now, I am doing this from an uncomfortable chair to minimize the excessive wrong dosing, while hoping along the line will change the dos-a-dos positions of Yosief and me. (Part-II will follow soon)