A Response to Yosief Gebrehiwet

Two episodes neatly illustrated

As I often relish dialogic argument of give and take that is much the principle I stood for, and this will in no way be different on how I treat the argument of my colleague Yosief in his essay “romanticizing ghedli.” His argument does not only contains subjects that are contrarian to conventional wisdom and historical facts, on which I have tried to dispute it in part-I and part-II of my essay, but also contains some theoretical conceptions that are neatly illustrated to reflect a compelling theoretical narration on the policy of both organizations during our army struggle. Unlike his modified theory “unity by subtraction” in his recent essay, his original essay “unity by subtraction” of 2003 and the theory of “self-preservation at any cost” in his “romanticizing ghedli” are two conceptual theories that fits the ailment and mismanagement of our army struggle.

The conventional wisdom on certain subjects such as “Eritrean identity”, “the cause of ghedli,” and their “links” are so deeply rooted that no amount of evidence disturbs its hold. But rendering a witness to numbers of shifting tides in the journey of our ghedli and digging historical facts to bring to its surface is enormously appropriate for those who are interested to give an educated and well researched report. So far with the exception of Dr. Kibreab Gaim’s book “The critical reflection on the Eritrean war of Independence”, which yet I have to go through it, all the rest are one sided and incomplete accounts. No question that I have qualms on those academicians (intelligentsia) who tried to give one sided report in their books and who even do not want to collect facts from tegadelti of both organizations (……did I read in their books tegadelts are biased?…..Hamm) but they never hesitate to site foreigner writers about our ghedli who collect from tegadelti by the way. Did they ever think themselves that the foreigners no matter how incomplete report they have, that they got it from tegadelti? Are they convinced by the common saying “history is written by the winners” and that the vanquished have not role despite the fact they were actors in the making of history? Of course, Readers of Eritrean books will definitely know about whom I am talking.

However, my colleague Yosief didn’t fall into their trap. He tried to expose the ills of both organizations despite his misstep on Eritrean identity and its link with the Eritrean revolution. No wonder the can-do spirit is a thread that runs through his current life at least since I know him. He vouched frequently for the oppressed Eritrean people and that bond hold us face-to-face mirror. I don’t agree on all issue with him and I am sure him as well. But on the current Eritrean political crises we see eye-to eye on almost all issues. Let me give you a metaphorical example to explain our relations on the current Eritrean politics. In stereochemistry there are such called stereo-isomers. To make it simple, Stereo-isomers exhibit the same bonding topology- the same atoms bonded to the same atoms. They are isomorphic, meaning exactly corresponding in form and relations. I saw myself and Yosief as isomorphic human being bonded and vouched to the oppressed Eritrean people. This much I could tell to those political-nail-biters who came to defend Yosief’s argument in its entirety without scrutiny to his claim on “romanticizing ghedli.”I have showed them where I disagree with him in the last two series of this essay and I will show them now where I could agree in principle and theory on the policy of ghedli in general. Again I caution my readers that I will not go beyond his assertion.

The order of conformity and control

Often time our arguments might be orphaned, our claims might be botched, and our efforts might appear thankless. Nevertheless there is always a joy to stand tall for the truth, because, it in itself is absolutely good fight. Yosief as one who tries to develop instant expertise on variety of topics finally found “an original and organic argument” that bears the truth and scores credibility on “truth-o-meter.” His theoretical concept of “unity by subtraction and self-preservation at any cost” are two interdependent and interconnected ideas that define reasonably to draw insightful lessons to the experience of our Ghedli. This poignant observation was adequate to provoke and generate deep debate within the average political consumer of Eritrean politics. Let me instill some facts to support his theory in its essence and how it was applied in the Eritrean field.

(a)    The Eritrean field can only accommodate one organization:

(i) Though the Eritrean army struggle did not start with a defined and scripted mission at its inception in 1961, no one will dispute that it was a resistance force against colonization and subjugation. In the course of its evolvement and the adaption of Algerian mode of struggle (the formation of zonal army - keflitat in the image of ethnic background), begins the fissure and distrust that manifest the epic-center of all ghedli’s ailments and ills. It was at this era, the unscripted policy that entails “the Eritrean field can not accommodate more than one organization” start to be enforced and liquidated ELM (mahber sheweate) in 1965 at the battle of Elasaeda in North-Eastern of Sahel. It was done for the organizational preservation to dominate and control the Eritrean field. It was also a causal mission to create an order of conformity and control in the Eritrean body politics of our army struggle. (ii) The first organizational congress (national congress) of ELF in 1971, despite its national-democratic programs, it was failed to redress the balance of Eritrean body politics. Instead, the congress adapted the same policy officially – the Eritrean field can not hold more than one organization, all in the name of unity. The splinters (selfi-nasenet, ELF-PF, and Ebolin) were defined as counter-revolutionaries (tsere-ghedli) though there were loose conditions related to selfi-nasenet to be approached in the wake of their grievances. In any case, the Eritrean Liberation Army (ELA) was directed to engage into civil war to liquidate the splinters. Bear in mind there is detail into it for those who want to do it. I am only doing this to substantiate Yosief’s theory of unity by subtraction - the order of conformity and control instead unity by diversity, all in the name of organizational preservation. Equally it was profoundly true with EPLF as justified by the civil war of 9180 to 1981, this time by forming alliance with foreign force, namely TPLF.

(b)   Unity but not unity:- 

 What is unity but not unity? Although I grew-up in a communal unity and have been tackling this task for many years, I still find it challenging to expound its application within the boundry of our nation-Eritrea. Many Eritreans have stood for the cause of unity and the things that can flourish from its purpose, such as love to each other and tolerance to individual views within the collective frame work to the common good of our nation. Sadly enough, many citizen of good will and proponent of unity have given their precious life in the struggle within the struggle in our army struggle.

Conceptually, unity tells us that our minds are our connecting link to every idea or action we want to involve. Such statement is a highly motivating to that part of our intellect which seeks answers. In Eritrea which was seemingly turmoil, conflict, and unrest, unity affirms the bold statement. Unity should have work for the common good to those who work for Eritrea to exist as sovereign nation and who are called accordingly to its purpose.

In any case, retrospectively, history attested that the end of 1974 to mid 1975 was the single period with the highest influx of Eritrean young that joined to both fronts. I was one of the “join ups” or “enlisted” of that era. Before I join the front, I was a foot soldier of Dr. Iyob and Temesgen in early 70s, who were then the editors of “tihisha” to bring the awakening of Eritrean awareness about “Hizbawi Hailetat” in particular and the Eritrean Ghedli in general to the Eritrean urbanites in Addis Ababa. After the fateful death of Temesgen in September 1972, Dr. Iyob escaped from the trap of Ethiopian security and joined Hizbawi-Hailetat. I will never forget the well respected geologists by their peers in the Ministry of mines, but, ironically shocked by the news and see their offices closed with a notice on the doors “Tashigewal”, meaning “a door not to be opened except to investigators.” Since then the Eritrean employee of Ministry mines were under the suspicion radar of Ethiopian security at least until I left in December 1974.

Interestingly, we were aware about the resolution of ELF in its first congress of 1971, regarding the three splinters who later formed a united front (Sumur-genbar) namely Hizbawi-Hailetat (under the acronym ELF-PF). The resolution that defined the splinters as counter-revolutionaries (tsere-ghedli) gave full power to the revolutionary-council (ELF-RC) to wage a civil war against the splinters. All this was in the name of unity but not unity. It was unity by coercion and war for the sake of conformity and self-preservation. Astonishingly, this perverted idea of unity was the deciding factor in the deliberation of my thought as to which front I should join in 1974, if any I could contribute to stop this bloody civil war. It was a mantra that singularly dominates my thought and belief. Hence I joined ELF in 1974. I found the front friendly than I thought with the freedom to air your view relatively if not in full-fledged. Keep in mind this is an army struggle with a military discipline not a civil-discourse. Besides that the “national democratic program” of ELF helped the democrats in the rank and files to resist the order of pointing their guns to their brothers and sisters who were in ELF-PF (hizbawi-hailetat). Cases to a point, after the bloody civil war of Weki-Zager in 1974, forty two fighters refuse to point their guns to Eritrean nationalist in the other front. Despite their brief imprisonment, they saw the fruits of their resistance, when the second congress of ELF which was held in mid 1975, adapt a resolution that recognize ELF-PF as national force who are fighting for Eritrean independence, and as such the ELF-RC has to device a means of dialogue and conduct a meeting with ELF-PF what ever it takes for national unity – a complete reversal of 1971 resolution. It was a sign of a relief and a hope for unity until the horizontal and vertical split of ELF-PF (Hizbawi-Haileltat) in January 1977 (a fissure between the diplomatic-core lead by Osman Salih Sabe and field commander’s lead by Issayas Afewerki). Bear in mind, they were under the umbrella of united-front - a marriage to resist the onslaught that comes from ELF). The organization had not a united leadership; hence forth it is understandable that the two leaderships will break away their relations eventually at the convenience of one or the other. EPLF was born out of the split of Hizbawihailetat in 1977. For the time being, forget the twisted historical account of EPLF by some authors who try to pre-date it to 1970. The answer is no , no.

Caught off guard, it wasn’t until December 1975, when I was sent for a temporary assignment to Sahel area, that I knew ELF-PF was not for unity. I read the first publication of “Hafeshawi-Temherti of 1975 (PP-86)” in the same year, which says I quote “Jebha will dissolve by itself and the democratic force of ELF will join us.” The book was published in North America by ENASA sent for distribution to the ranks and files ELP-PF. Of course, this became a turning point on how I view shabea in the context of unity. No question the book was full of sectarian tone (in terms Christian/Muslims talk) and regional tone (in terms of kebessa/metahit) and was intended for the indoctrination of the bases of the organization. Actually, it was not a coincidental, that my colleague Dr. Iyob on the other side of the organizational aisle has also learned that the two fronts had not ideological difference but had difference in the practice of the principle they espoused. As a result he believed in principle that there should not be a problem to unite the two fronts. He aired this view in 1976 in Kebessa when unity was the main talk-point at that time. As a matter of fact this belief could not get a room of accommodation with Hizabawi-Hailetat of that era and evidently he had paid with his group his dear life.

The reason why I need to bring this back ground is simply to show that the sacrifice for the “principle of unity” was not out of naivety as some how Yosief have eluded when he tried to explain the fate of the democratic movement or “ falul” a name approbated by ELF-RC to demonize the movement. The principle of unity no matter how it might be structured was the top priority to all democrats of that era, be it in ELF or ELF-PF (jebha or Hizbawihailetat) though the echo was lauder and readable on the side of ELF bases.

(c) The Crises that Defies True-Solution:-

What has been so unsettling about the present political crises is that, it has not conformed to the standard model of political cycles and has not submitted to familiar textbook solutions within the socio-economic and socio-political reality of our nation. A hallmark of the crises within the opposition camp has been the stark contrast between the “real politics” of justice and the need of political activism and the tumultuous desire of democratic reform. It is my understanding that the resulting intellectual vacuum has spawned political chaos both within the opposition camp and the archaic leadership within the EPFDJ government. In both camps the regional and sectarian politics still persisted to exist.

Whether one understands sectarianism and regionalism, it has become increasingly clear that the Eritrean body politics is subtly mired with sectarian and regional politics. Exclusively through the lenses of our elites specifically the highlanders, they always put themselves as secular-nationalist and accuse their counterpart lowlanders as regional and sectarian in their motives. Sad as it may be, this view has been the overwhelming perception in the army struggle, and is still the overwhelming expressions among the kebessan even in our current dialogic communications. The problem is they are not better than them in that regard. In their pronouncement, they could not acknowledge the long supremacy of secular nationalism in real sense and did not reflect to the complex ethnic mix and the diversity of many Eritrean regions. Instead they go by politics of “Toblahta” meaning birds of the same feather flocks together and of course they do not exhibit ideological and philosophical merits. No wonder this has been a strategy to “go forward” during the army struggle by both fronts and as “strategy of rule” in the current state affairs. Sectarian differences have now worsened due to the redistribution of land to the highlanders in the South-Western lowland region and the marginalizing policy of EPFDJ. Parallel to that irritating episode many intellectual Eritreans have also failed to understand the regional-centric government of EPFDJ and remain sided to their overwhelming background belief that the lowlanders or Muslims are sectarian in their motives. The regional-partisan emotional wounds (highland/lowland) are still raw and festering. It is time to resurrect the politics of common sense and stop all the subjects they discuss in whisper and loud in their circles. As J.A. Olowojoba reminds us “the strength of man lies in his acknowledgement of his weakness, and his weakness lies not in knowing that in his strength lies the antidote to overcome weakness,” with this everyone of us have to resort into self-examining our weakness rather to unleash disproportionately on the weakness of someone selected for the firing line. 

Intellectual Dishonesty elevated to its climax

If you are a regular reader of my articles, you have heard me ranting from time to time about intellectual dishonesty. By that, I mean all their garden of variety of lies. To be intellectually dishonest means to argue that which you know to be untrue and substitute to any of your make ups to the degree that you will do violence to language and logic rather than playing positive across the sections of your society. The Eritrean intellectual has elevated their dishonesty beyond hypocrisy and political expedience at time of temptation to our harmony and the need of - the avatar, the exemplar, the paradigm.

So much for “not being pristine” in the long 30 years Ghedli’s journey have been claimed by many. But, the irony is they don’t reflect themselves how pristine they are in their judgments of the past struggle and its history. I am not calling a spade- a- spade, but I am attempting to show their Hippocratic stances and unrealistic arguments. Ahem….Ahem, all the way they have made it…. an art. Some came from a witness lane to defend Yosief’s historical argument, but they failed to do so. To my surprise I have heard an astonishing thing about nostalgia from Gebrehiwet Andemariam one of our intellectual again, a brand eccentric argument that have lost its axis……criticizing me of having nostalgia about hardship, starvations, death and sacrifice….. All the life of ghedli one has to go through. Who can have nostalgia about hardship, death and sacrifice that any Ghedli can offer? Ahem… Ahem, keep in mind all these accusations are even after I clarified my current stand and the cause I stood for. How dishonesty he is. In fact I made it clear that I didn’t come up to tell history, but I came to dispute the history told on some specifics mentioned on Yosief’s arguments. In short I was trying to download historical info just within the proximity of his assertion on a subconscious and super-conscious level so the public can make   judgment. As to the issue of “sectarian card” either organizations one way or the other has played with it. I don’t know who will be proud of that, but I do know that most of us can not dwell on the past. This is the fact if Gebrehiwet Andemariam and his likes can get comfort out of that.

Unfortunately, some of us are too plodding and earthbound, too blind to the seductions of the art of dishonesty, too stubbornly wedded to some vestigial notions. Our current state of affairs, love it or loathe it, is indisputably a product of the dishonesty of our intellectuals all with pavlovian faithfulness to the organization they belong to. Sadly it has proved an easy lesson to impart, and it turns out, all it requires is a limitless supply of gall and the inherent belief that people are dumber than a bag of hammers.

Amid the grim tone of this era, and as somber tone settles in, the pivotal role for Yosief and our young should be acting distinctively from emotions and volitions, to offset the lapses of our leaders by filling the voids…… those lapses left in the past by both organizations incompetent leadership. And all this must start by avoiding the deep-brain recoil in the dwelling of the past and indifference to the success of ghedli. You have to do it in an altogether ironic switch by walking a tight line and signaling of generational difference that time and space have brought up challenges of different dimensions. In fact, this sort of out-with-the-old and sort of in-with-the-new phenomenon as symbol of evolution is not unusual. I am confident that the seismic change is underway slowly but surely with our young ensuring their readiness.

To our young, challenge the certainty of our leaders. We know certainty brings not peace but anger. We know subconsciously that certainty is a lie. It is a lie born of their refusal to see their limits. Tell them that if we divide the circumstance of a circle by its radius, we get not a clean fraction but a number that never ends. Tell them human intelligence circles back on its self. Tell them our lives are preceded and followed by infinities of space and time. Tell them their limits are everywhere if they are willing to see them. Finally tell them that they are rehearsing their certainties at the table next to yours, but you can only raise your glass to peace. And of course the hushed debate and the discreet glances to their past is not to discredit their input but to make generational transformation of power. Everyone must stand face-to-face with him self or herself in a mirror over the action and reaction on their political journey and make self-evaluation to find how destructive it was.

Conclusion

In concluding the three part of my essay, let me share the following remark; we may change our minds about what is truly-just but not about how much fairness matters. But one lesson to share with public: As faltering as our intuitions about fairness in public policy and public judgments are, success comes only to an individual who can enlist them effectively. It is not enough to craft a theory on the negative of our history. We have to convince the public that they were wise and just to bring them at this time. Surely, some of our citizen for reasons they grasp only dimly, are not a lot better at that than others, however smart and engaged they are. Almost does not seem fair, does it?

In any cast, for those of us who are looking for fundamental changes to our thought, we wish for lines that go from here to Eritrea, there to somewhere, somewhere to Eritrea. We wait for walking. Wake, wake and wake. We whisper. We lasso Eritrea the nation, but it slips free of our pull and spins itself into blur. We anchor our self to polystyrene rocks to make believe and gasp for our political air. We dream of locked chambers and curse the keys that are hidden so far from our hands. We follow lines tunneling into Eritrea, while whispering to the pores of our people to open up so that each one might soak into their scarred tissue. We tap nervous, stop-start rhythms across the links of our identity, as we pray for peace and reconciliation. Think where we are. I rest my case and thank you my readers.

For comment you could e-mail me at This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it