A Response to Yosief Ghebrehiwet

Assigning initial plausibility

To begin with, our own observation provides us the most reliable source of information about any issue subjected to a debate. It is therefore only plausible to be suspicious of any claim that comes into conflict with what we have observed by our own eye. Yes some claims stand up on their own merits depending how they are presented and pass the plausibility tests. But when they fail on their own, it is because they come into conflict with either our own observation or with what we call our “background.” Assigning initial plausibility depends on how consistent their claims are with our background information and how well they fit with that real observed information.

Keeping the aforementioned philosophical approach as a step stone for my argument, we will see whether Yosief’s  hypothesis have or have not  initial plausibility and how well they fit with the real observed information on the ground. I will see his hypothesis and his supporting claim “together” at the same time “separately.” Let me bring some of the excuses and escape goats he mentioned in part-I of his essay:

(A)  Case-I - Yosief constructed a hypothesis (a statement) to define jebha as a sectarian organization that should never exist to carry out an army struggle, and went further to characterize the conditions and motives that brought its existence. Here is one of the many statements he eluded in his argument; and I quote “this is an organization that was born out of sectarian motives.” In here since words matter a lot in an educated debate, “born out” and “sectarian motives” are two important phrases where cause and effect are extricable to the convenience of my argument. Let me exculpate and test this statement whether it is false or true as it stands. Here I will not argue whether jebha was sectarian organization or not. But, I will try to come from hindsight and see philosophically and historically whether there was “a condition” that cause to the birth of “sectarian organization” as he claimed, before jebha itself exists. Bear in mind that I am not trying to defend jebha, but I will try to perform a “plausibility test” to his argument.

His statement “infers” that there was “sectarian motives" in the Eritrean body politics before jebha was born, and as a result jebha was born from that reality. This political hypothesis has not leg at all let alone to pass the plausibility test. Let me exculpate his approach by giving an example. Suppose Mr. “X “has trouble of sleeping at night and went to a doctor to find out what went wrong. The doctor runs several tests and then informed Mr. X that, at long last, he had the explanation. “The cause of Mr. X of not sleeping,” he announces, “is insomnia." Here Mr. X wouldn’t need to know what his doctor’s reasoning was, because his explanation was inherently defective. Some “causal claims” and hypothesis are like that. They suffer from inherent difficulties or problems that lie within the claim itself. When the claim becomes circular the “cause” merely restates the “effect.” When the doctor said Mr. X can’t sleep because of “insomnia”, while insomnia in itself mean “trouble of sleeping”, it clearly manifest’s a circularity behavior. Similarly Yosief’s argument suffers circularity fallacy when he said Jebha is “sectarian” because it is born from “sectarian motives.” I found it as a non-testable claim.  

Trouble of sleeping = insomnia, so also sectarian organization = sectarian motives, all signifying circular argument (cause=effect).

What about historically? History argues for caution anytime. Yosief tries to navigate into a history zone. His motive in doing so is questionable whether his intention was to find a judicious political settlement as it should be. The Eritrean army struggle didn’t start from sectarian motives (check his claims), but instead, it came to exist as a result of the “forceful annexation” of Eritrea with Ethiopia. The annexation of Eritrea brought the exile of patriotic members of the parliament that include Ibrahim sultan, Idris Mohammed Adem and other elites of that era like Osman salih sabe and Woldeab woldemariam (though wolwol left few years before that fateful event). These prominent figures of that era along with those students who were abroad had conceived the idea of army struggle, and decided to launch it in 1961. Here everyone must ask himself/herself whether the cause for jebha to be born was “forceful annexation” or “sectarian motives.” In any case, history attests that    forceful annexation was the cause to the birth of our army struggle (jebha) within that specific period of our history.

Unlike the natural sciences, in social science under which fall the realm of politics, there is an established law that political experiment can not be replicated to produce a similar outcome. In a political laboratory the “ingredients” and “variables” are in constant change. Because of this constant change, we should be conscious about the factors and catalyst that affects the variables which exist within every specific space and time. But at the same time we are also reminded, that in politics we can not control variables. As a result we can not calculate the probability of its outcome.

In the light of the above philosophical concept, one can think back as to why Jebha failed to have a united army wing in the 60s that brought all the elements of ailment within its rank and files. Allow me to give you some tangible examples that history recorded the fiasco of political replications that was attempted in two instances. Few decades ago (1979) USA tried to reproduce the Entebbe successful raid by Israelis in Uganda to liberate the hostages in Tehran. But, it becomes a complete disaster. Similarly ELF tried to replicate the Algerian mode of struggle in the 60s which most highlanders tried to account it as sectarian motives. Yosief’s reflection is not far from this biased account. History demands more home work to this venture or risky enterprise. The Algerian mode of struggle was not sectarian in its motives. But it was wrong ELF to emulate and replicate that mode of struggle in the Eritrean reality which became in any case a pitiable failure. In short, it was a historical case against the established law in any political experiment; or in other words it was a risky political experiment without enough thought put to it. But again consider the depth of political knowledge of that era.

(B)  Case-II - On concocted myths: Yosief argued that the Eritrean revolution has not historical, ideological, and psychological bases to launch an army struggle. Instead, it was based on concocted myths, make-over, and lies. To nullify the army struggle he listed four excuses to make his point. (1)The Eritrean revolution is not  a case of the oppressed mass rising against a colonizer (2) There were no such “univocal identity” to reflect Eritrean “common identity” (3) Eritrean of different backgrounds have never lived in peace and harmony except under the Italians (4) That the history of Eritrean kebessa is not different of that of Ethiopians.

It is obvious and easy, one to construct the “theme of his essay” from the above extracts. In fact no need to read between the lines to pin down right away. All the above four points are lined up to justify that the Eritrean revolution (ghedli) was in fact erected to concoct a new history that is alien to the Eritrean people; and as such the Eritrean Ghedli was not a mode of struggle to realize the aspiration of Eritrean people. This was the implication of his narration collectively while the “chorus of his strategy” was hit ghedli on all fronts. And he did it to depurate himself from the ills of ghedli without reservation and consideration that could cause repercussion to the current struggle. In fact his argument does not deal that much in detail with “romanticizing ghedli,” except he touches randomly the culture-of-resistance that exist from the old mold, however, as it should be. Most of his effort was to disqualify ghedli as a necessity to fulfill the aspiration of the Eritrean people. Interestingly, no one in his right mind will claim or project “the image of ghedli as pristine” in its 30 years of life span, though he coined it to score his point as the nature of his debate suggests.  But also let us see his four core beliefs separately as we have seen collectively, if any at all, appeals to the Eritrean people’s consciousness:

(i)   Was the Eritrean revolution a case of the oppressed mass against colonizer? Yes, as I have shown in my previous article titled “the evolvement of Eritrean nationalism and Eritrean nationhood,” that there were political oppression, social injustice, and economic disparity by the Ethiopian rulers. I had also laid down that the Eritrean revolution have met the three basic intertwined qualifiers (ideological, psychological, and historical) required to raise an army struggle. No more justification from my side on this issue.

(ii) Identity within identity: Yosief argued that there were no and does not exist “univocal identity” within Eritrean people. Contrary to his view, there is no question in my mind that the overwhelming majority of our population of all backgrounds has one “common identity” and that is identifiable as “Eritrean Identity.” The rest be it group identity, ethnic identity, or individual identity are “identity within identity” that identifies one from the other. Frankly, there is no such “univocal identity” having one proper established meaning so to speak. Ironically, he tried to abstract the concept of identity instead of objectifying the political and historical evolvement of Eritrean common identity. Indeed, the terminology was surfaced only to disprove “our common identity.” For him, if the there is no univocal identity there will be no common identity. But then, here is a question for Yosief. If he believes that all Eritreans must have a univocal voice to have a common identity, while he is advocating at the same time for “individual identity” that allows to differ if he/she need to, isn’t he contradicting himself? He can’t have both sides. No matter how high the percentage (statistical number) in fever of any issue at hand might be, there is also always significant or insignificant number to list against it. He must know what govern when the collective issues at hand needs resolution.

Intermittently, Yosief’s argument lacks “common-thread-reasoning.”Common thread reasoning is best suited as a method for forming hypothesis that can be tested in some other way, usually involving relevant-difference reasoning. Again let me make my point by giving an example: If a piece of litmus paper turns red when you dip it in a liquid, it is safe to think the liquid caused the alteration. That’s because the litmus paper prior to dipping and the litmus paper during dipping were exactly the same, except after dipping in the liquid. This might sound like “post-hoc-reasoning,” but it isn’t. The reason is that touching the liquid was the only relevant-difference that could explain the paper’s turning red. In other words relevant difference reasoning yields conclusion that are certain by everyday standards of rigor. Yosief’s reasoning does not follow the accepted standard of reasoning. He doesn’t even attempted to elaborate why in his right mind believe that only “univocal identity” will result to “common identity.”

(iii) Eritreans were living in a relative harmony: Eritreans of all background despite of all the perceptional difference haven’t resorted to a civil war of ethnic nature. In fact I commend the Eritrean society their wisdom in restraining from resorting into war of ethnic nature. The existing organizations that are structured in ethnic constituents are not as such for “ethnic politics.” They are formed for the quest of “ethnic justice,” be it in politics, social, or economic justice. “Ethnic justice is not equal to Ethnic politics.” As he aptly identified the nature of the civil war in his articles “Unity by subtraction” as well as   “Self -preservation at any cost,” that all the civil wars were intended for the purpose of “organizational self-preservation.” (I will tackle this two defining issue on part-III). Of course there was, and still there is mistrust among the groups of different backgrounds in our society, that could be resolved by addressing head on the issue of concerns. But to surmise doubts by saying the Eritrean people haven’t lived in peace and harmony throughout their history is extremely out of proportion.

(iv) Border communities have common background: Yosief’s argument as to the relationship of Kebessa and Tigray is concerned, does not bear an implicit or explicit impact to the theme of his argument. Because, no one misses the fact that, any community who reside in the vicinity of a border areas have related culture and social relations to any community who lives adjacent to them on the opposite side. It is true with Ethiopia. It is true with Sudan and it is true with all African countries for that matter.