Dr. Taddesse�s August 28^th posting, �The Road Map To Democracy and Prosperity in Eritrea,� is one of the best essays I have lately read, primarily for its focus on the practical urgency of the moment.  We have hitherto been feeding the bottomless pit of the post-modern gadget, which we call the internet, with our lamentations and condemnatory statements against the Eritrean dictatorship.  Doing so has, of course, been necessary and must continue.  However, continuous articulation of our normative aspirations and denunciation of the oppressive system obtaining in our country alone, unaccompanied by a resolute commitment to a program of action as well as the explicit determination of tactics and strategy, can only make very little progress in realizing the aims of the struggle.  It is this salient point which Dr. Taddesse addressed in his coherently articulated and superbly delivered essay.  For that very reason, I would like to seize the moment and jump on his bandwagon. 

     The translation of aspirations into a program of action is by no means automatic.  One has to know when to cross the bridge that connects the realm of ideas and aspirations to the sphere of action.  I believe we have approached the bridge and it is time to cross it right now.  And the way to do it is to cluster our ideas and desires around core values.  I sincerely believe that Dr. Taddesse�s essay contains these critical values around which all of us can comfortably rally.  Of course, as he aptly termed it, what he has provided is �The Road Map.�  And a road map is just that, showing us where to start the journey and in what direction to take the journey.  Pioneers can differ on how to use the road map, whether to take a straight line or explore other shorter or even longer routes.  The pioneers know that this is the road map they have to use and they must all be clear in their minds about the destination. 

     I believe there are a large number of us who share Dr. Taddesse�s core values.  However, we have hitherto limited ourselves to casual commentaries on the internet, perhaps forgetting that politics is a contact sport, to use a metaphor.  I am of the opinion that now is the time that we should come together physically, connecting person to person, speaking heart to heart and communicating fighter to fighter to chart a new course of action.  I think Dr. Taddesse�s call for united action is meant to serve that purpose.  Let us come together to reason out the fundamentals of �The Road Map.�  I, therefore, add my voice to Dr. Taddesse�s in inviting us all to the table to debate, improve, modify or add to the cardinal components of �the Road Map.�  Meanwhile, we need to realize that we are proceeding under three interrelated working assumptions.

     First, history teaches us that dictators never hand over power to its rightful owners voluntarily. Survival is the Alpha and Omega principle of dictatorship.  It goes without saying that the Eritrean dictator will definitely follow the many examples of members of his political species.  The dictator has defiantly hunkered down for a long haul to meet the opposition by all and any means.  To this end, he is increasingly militarizing the reactionary order of serfdom.  By the same token, he is trying hard to break out from his lonely iron cage by conducting a bizarre form of diplomacy.  He is begging the U.S. to use Eritrea as a military parking lot in a possible war against Iraq.  What we know from the history of international politics is that great powers do invariably ask, cajole, demand and intimidate small nations to compromise their autonomy, sovereignty and independence to allow the former to use the territory of the latter for any purpose.  However, the United States does not have to do all that, because the Eritrean dictator is readily practicing a perverted form of international masochism saying: "Beat me up; please, beat me up more." While the nations of the world are fighting for peace with the Iraqi people, the Eritrean dictator has offered his partnership in full towards a war against Iraq.  From the dictator�s point of view, this is not illogical.  He perfectly knows that he has become an embarrassing international pariah.  So, by playing the role of a masochist, he is trying to win the favors of Washington.  The masochist strategem can serve multiple purposes: it gives him international legitimacy, nullifying the potential effects of the denunciations of his political repression from human rights groups, it isolates the progressive opposition forces from the international community and thus neutralizs their political efficacy, and finally it gains him access to American largesse necessary to sustain his sadistic internal policy of repression.  As part of the strategem, like the political toddler that he is, the Eritrean dictator has latched himself to the nipples of �anti-terrorism� hoping to suck on America�s illusory �milk.�  To be sure, in the mind of the Eritrean dictator, internal political sadism and international masochism are complimentary.  Such is the Eritrean dictator�s novel contribution to post-modern politics, which, however, is consistent with the principle of survival. 

     If my first working assumption is correct, then we have to confront some fundamental questions raised by Dr. Taddesse: Who is going to convene the national conference?  Who will be the constituent forces of the national conference?  Can a national conference still be called in the event that the Eritrean government remains defiant and treats the idea of a national conference as illegitimate?  Then, what next? 

     The second assumption key to correctly understanding the problem before us is to treat dictatorship as the social phenomenon that it is.  One of the cardinal mistakes opposition forces most frequently make is to treat a dictator as an isolated and lonely figure.  He is not.  Every dictator has a large following.  For one reason or another, many people do make huge investments in dictatorship in terms of insuring the sources of their livelihood, promotion, prestige and the illusory hope of someday succeeding the dictator himself.  This complex social reality allows the dictator to effectively play the game of survival.  He creates circumstances in which high ranking officials bear false witness against their colleagues, generals betray other generals, engineers testify against engineers, professors accuse other professors of intellectual treason, cadres squeal on cadres.  In the end, distrust and crass self-promotion at the expense of colleagues, comrades, friends and co-workers become the ruling ethos of dictatorship. 

   In the interest of progressive opposition, the nature of dictatorship and the texture of its complex social relationships require careful, methodical and deliberate analysis and understanding.  Authentic political actors must first understand the social forces surrounding them before they begin acting for change.  Popular dissatisfaction with the system alone is not a sufficient indicator as to the weakness of the dictator.  Tapping into mass dissatisfaction and preparing the dissatisfied for purposeful political action is a tricky business, demanding thoughtful prudence and diligence.  I believe that failure to grasp this fact of politics was in part responsible for the demise of the internal reformers in Eritrea.  They underestimated the power base of the dictator and exaggerated the value of internal disaffection and the extent of external support from the Diaspora-community.  In sum, the social character of the Eritrean dictatorship is something that we need to take into account when we debate Dr. Taddesse�s �road map.� 

     The third assumption is that maturity of the subjective conditions of a struggle is critical to its success.  Objectively speaking, there seems to be a general consensus within the opposition camp in regards to the abhorrent reality obtaining in Eritrea today and the growing alienation of the dictator from his power base.  However, leadership (of course I am speaking here generically) within the broad opposition camp is in its primitive stage, to put it mildly.  Denouncing the dictatorship with remarkable regularity and virulence and raising the banner of democracy high are by no means sufficient.  I do wholeheartedly agree with Dr. Taddesse�s modest and implicit criticism of the opposition.  From my standpoint, the dozen or so organizations that fall under the rubric of opposition forces may serve as harbingers of warlordism.  As presently constituted, they cannot produce nationally acceptable political synthesis and a program of action, much less overcome their huge credibility deficit.  They all appear to be waiting in the wings for the dictatorial order to fall under its own weight.  I am not limiting my criticism here to pre-existing organizations or leaders.  My criticism is a generic one.  We Eritreans have over-internalized the fetishism of �veteran-ness�.  We have erroneously accepted the faulty notion that the fate of Eritrea is only safe in the hands of veteran fighters, veteran leaders, veteran organizations.  We need to break this habit and we need to advocate the transfer of the mantle of leadership to the younger generation. Those of us on the outskirts of our twilight have a solemn responsibility to help create a new pantheon of young leaders who are willing to pick up the torch of human emancipation and raise the banner of democracy even higher.  After all, �veteran-ness� is not inheritable; it is earned.  We all can become veterans of the struggle for democracy tomorrow by joining the fight for it today.  That is just what Dr. Taddesse is inviting us to do. Personally, I do solemnly accept his invitation.  I will make my contribution to the fundamentals of his �road map� in my next posting.