Last December, a new Eritrean political movement was created. The movement came up with ideas and we thought that our public should be informed about the new movement. We thought the movement would continue the secretive mode of operation like many other movements. We contacted the movement and challenged its leadership to come to the open. To our surprise, they were no only willing to come out, but were ready: they read us the names and told us to go ahead and publish it.  They were also willing to be interviewed to explain their views.

The first conference of the Eritrean Federal Democratic Movement (EFDM) has elected a Central Committee and a Secretariat composed of the following:

1. Bashir Isaac Abdalla � Secretary General
2. Mohamed Saleh Abu Sheba- deputy Secretary General
3. Fissehatsion Zemechael Nair- Secretary for Research and Studies, (English and Tigrenya Section)
4. Salah Ibrahim Abouray-Secretary for Information and Propaganda
5. Beshir Osman Shafray- Secretary for Financial and Resources Management
6. Arhe Hamednaca Asgedom- Project Manager (Seminars, Conferences, Political and conventional Education and other Projects)
7. Dr. Jalaleldin Mohamed Saleh- Research and Studies(Arabic Section)
8. Mohamed Othman Mohamed� legal and Constitutional Affairs
9. Omer Abubaker Othman- Competence Upgrading and political Education
10.  Abdulrahim Shiekh Arey � Administration, Organization and technical Affairs
11.  Abdul Aziz Mehre � Administration and Recruitment

The Secretary General, �after consulting with the London Branch has appointed� Abdulrahman Mohamed Sayed as his spokesman in the UK, and Mohamed Jimie Yassen for the "Youth and Recruitment Affairs office". The Information and Propaganda Office is located in London. The movement is currently forming an information and documentation committee that will operate out of London. It will be staffed with �highly qualified journalists and intellectuals�. They also have plans to form 'Arts and technical' bodies in both the USA and the Middle East.

Here is the interview that was conducted with Beshir Isaac Abdalla, Fissehatsion Nair and Arhe Hamednaca Asgedom:

1- Tell us, briefly about the evolution of the EFDM, how did it start?

Concerned Eritreans in different parts of the world were already studying and discussing issues of Eritrean unity, diversity and territorial integrity, and the deep-rooted conflict and polarized Eritrean society and options for its resolutions. The discussions, meetings and studies through the years were more concerned about the internal conflict in Eritrea. Through out their careers, some had established strong working and research relationships with international institutions concerned with conflict resolutions, social and political research centers and democracy promotion institutes. Thanks to cyber communication, the flow of ideas enabled the concerned Eritreans to communicate, which subsequently led to the setting up of a discussion network. The Arkokabay Network was set up to facilitate more in-depth discussion on federalism, which led to the first conference of the EFDM in December 2002.

2- Why did it start?

It started out of conviction that Eritreans have paid so dearly to liberate Eritrea and preserve its territorial integrity as a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural nation state. There was concern that the blind assumption of Eritreans as �hade Libi hade Hizbi� and a centralized system of governance, be it dictatorial or otherwise, was going to harm the nation and state building processes by marginalizing segments of society in favor of the more powerful or the more aggressive. There was a need to recognize and accept Eritrean diversity not only in dancing and singing troupes, or individual membership of organizations, but in power and wealth sharing partnership granted by a national constitution and appropriate system of governance conducive to our diversity and plurality. From our experience and the experiences of many countries in the developing and developed worlds, we found Federalism to be the best system of governance for countries with plural and diverse societies.  Beside its ability to head off any future internal violence over political power, national resources and authority, federalism offers immense prospect for permanent stability and peaceful coexistence by constitutionally arranging the political power and dividing it among autonomous and semi autonomous regions of a union. It is also the best means of implementing genuine democracy that empowers the people in their diversities rather than the political elite and their �diverse� organizations. We have also realised that, what Eritrean people need is not only to defeat the dictator but to have better alternatives that bring lasting peaceful settlement in the future in our country. We have never seen convincing and practical conflict settlement by the various Eritrean political organizations at this time except to prevail over the dictator.

3- Could you give us examples of nations that have benefited from a federalist form of governance or a nation that you think is a good model for Eritrea to follow?

Yes, there are many nations and states that have benefited from a federal system of governance. For example, Switzerland, Germany, USA, Canada, Australia, India, Nigeria and many others. The Swiss model suits Eritrea's circumstances best, for it respects all the essentials and principles of federalism. The decision-making mechanism is undertaken by the local people (the autonomous regions).  The legislative body is divided into two chambers, where the upper chamber functions for balances and control of majority hegemonies in the central government. However, the transparency of this model guarantees the representation of the local people and safeguards their interests.  Constitutional issues are endorsed by referendums. The separation of power between the executive and the legislative bodies, and the executive members are not members of the assembly. The American federal model is based on presidential - congressional form of governance. This model functioned well in USA, but has never functioned well in developing countries where cynical politicians have empowered themselves and ended up in dictatorship. In developing countries most presidential form of governing has led to open or disguised dictatorships. Presidents in such countries empowers themselves to the extent that assemblies, ministerial cabinets, political parties and all other democratic institutions are reduced to cosmetic redundant bodies. In Switzerland the presidency has no power but chairs the meetings.

4- When was the genesis for this idea started?

The first study and discussion group was initiated by a handful of close friends as early as 1984 in one of the Arabian Gulf countries. It more or less concentrated in carefully watching the policies and behaviors of the various Eritrean organizations and studying the political developments and the diverse social reactions after the military defeat of the ELF and the emergence of new organizations. It considered itself a "catalyst" group for unity and objective political thinking. After the "Second Gulf War" and Eritrean independence, some of those who constituted the discussion groups have either returned to Eritrea or the Sudan or scattered to Western countries. Gradually, similar study groups were built up in many Diaspora countries. For instance, a small group was initiated in London in 1991. The Eritrean Cultural Forum � UK officially endorsed Federal Democracy in 1996 and began contacts with other like-minded Eritreans who happened to be in Europe to broaden the discussion network. NEF (The New Eritrean Force) in the Middle East in 1998, and Al- Wathiqa (The Covenant of Coexistence) composed of Sweden, Middle East, USA and elsewhere, started its studies and discussions in 1999. As mentioned above, thanks to cyber technology and other accessible communication facilities, many new groups were founded and the smaller groups came together under "Arkokabay Cyber Discussion Network" over more than a year ago. The movement's founding conference from 13 to 15 December 2002 was the cream of all these efforts.

5-  Don't you think there are many political formulas for the governance of Eritrea; what made you think that Eritrea needs a new formula?

Unfortunately, all the present national political groupings and the Eritrean people were denied the opportunity to come together and agree on a national formula for any system of governance. After the liberation of Eritrean in 1991, there was a need for all Eritrean stakeholders to come together and establish a system of governance that accommodates diversity and social justice. This important opportunity was denied to us all by the rogue regime of EPLF/PFDJ, which resorted to violent means to establish a ruthless chauvinist dictatorship that left many Eritreans marginalized. 

At present, many Eritreans, organized or non-organized, speak of the need to replace the dictatorial regime by a democratic multi-party system. However, we believe that democratic multi-party in plural and diverse society is necessary but is not sufficient to guarantee the legal rights of the diversity. The rights of the Eritrean diversity can only be realized under a decentralized federal system of governance. In the absence of federal system of governance, multi-party system could result in majority tyranny rule and legalize the existing hegemony of the chauvinist force.  

In modern governments, there are two formulas: national governing system and federal governing system. National governing system has the characteristics of centralism and, in plural and diverse society such as ours, leads to power concentration on the hands of the stronger and the more aggressive. Federal system of governing is characterised by its decentralised decision-making, sharing power and wealth and constitutional distributions of rights. The federal formula is the best solution for the Eritrean diversity.

6- Why do you think the existing formulas didn't achieve much?

Generally speaking, formulas based on national system of governing (unitary centralised governance) in heterogeneous society with intrinsic basic identity divergence never adhere to solve the internal conflict. They never empower the people but the ruler. There is no justice in political, economical and social policies of distribution. It deteriorates internal conflicts and breeds polarizations. The PFDJ �formulae� is based on a one-man absolutist dictatorship backed by Tigrigna chauvinism that recognizes no rights for the rest of Eritreans. This obviously could not achieve harmonious co-existence between all Eritreans nor could it bring peace, prosperity and sustainable development to the country. It created resentment among many Eritreans and led Eritrea to a dangerous situation at this moment. Under PFDJ "formulae,� Eritrean unity and territorial integrity have been threatened more than ever before. The opposition formulas too, have neither achieved expected opposition unity nor did it prevent conflict and polarization among them and the Eritrean society at large.

7- Did you consider joining the Eritrean National Alliance? If not, why?

At this time we are working with the establishment of the institutions and organs of the movement. But in the near future, we are looking forward to developing our relations in that direction. However, we belong to the democratic forces and we will join them in the struggle against the despot in order to build our nation by establishing social justice, rule of law and political democracy.

8- How is your program different from that espoused by the movements to liberate the Kunama and the Afar?  From Saghem? From the Islamists? From the ELF and the ELF-RC?

Some of the opposition organizations do not hide their intention to keep the highly centralized system and may not object too much about the hegemony of the already empowered. Some concur to some indistinct and unstipulated decentralization system; they seem not to care much at this time about "what" to change but "whom". Still some are governed by slogans such as "self-determination including and up to secession", and others entertain decentralization either from ethnic or religious dimensions.

However, our formula absolutely negates the centralist and hegemonic formulas in the one hand, but does not endorse or entertain secession, on the other hand. We think that the destiny of Eritreans "to live together" had already been determined long ago when they refused partition and all segments participated in the liberation of their country. The unresolved task in front of us is not "Nation Building" but "State Building"; it is how we come about a sustainable and durable formula for coexistence as equal partners, sharing power and wealth, sharing responsibilities and rights. Our formula is comprehensive and has a large space to satisfy all ethnic, religious and other concerns without imposing certain specifics on them. Our formula fits in together the particular specific concerns and promotes them to a larger society of consensus with mutual common interests and goals. It is a system of justice based on Federal Democratic Formula.

It should be clear to all that our program is based on multination federalism (unitary federalism, found for example in Switzerland, India and Canada) Multination Federalism is a state structure composing the predominant ethnic community in each unit (state), in addition to minorities in each federal unit that enjoy full human rights protections. We do not classify people by their ethnic origins or religions but by their place of residence. However, we consider "human rights protection" of ethnic groups necessarily includes the uncontested ownership of their traditional "means of production" and resources, such as uncontested and undisputed communal property rights over land.

9- You say that you �do not classify people by their ethnic origins or religions but by their place of residence.�  At the same time, you envision a federation of states whose primary identity are the �predominant ethnic community in each unit (state)�Aren�t these two statements contradictory?  Isn�t it true that what defines a �state� is the predominance of an ethnic group?

There is no contradiction here.

The identity elements such as ethnicity and religion are contained and included in the territorial identity. The Eritrean socio -economic structure is unique. There is no a single Eritrean territory with a single ethnic community. For example, in the western lowlands, there are many ethnicities. In the highlands, there are two ethnicities, the Tigrinya speaking majority Christians with a minority Muslims (Jeberty), and the Saho Moslems. Though, in the lowlands, the Christians are the minority and the Moslems are the majority, in the highlands, there are minority Moslems and majority Christians. This shows that the geographical identity element presents itself as a dominant factor rather than religious and/or ethnic characteristics. The lowland communities regardless of their ethnic and religious difference have lived in peace and harmony many thousand years. They have similarities in their way of life, understand their differences and are more intermingled. We believe that adopting a federal system that accommodates our cultural and ethnic diversities shall result in creating autonomous and semi autonomous regions and shall respond to the need of our people.

10- Do you believe in a unitary state, an Eritrea with its present administrative boundaries and limits?

We don�t believe in a centralized state. We don�t believe in a centralized state either in its present or past boundaries. Our views are that drawing internal boundaries within a country should be based on the �will" of the people and respect the cultural and historical identity and rights of all constituents in area they reside. Eritrean unity and territorial integrity is more endangered by political systems that deny our ethno-cultural diversities sufficient autonomy and recognition of historical rights over land and properties.

11- You say that �drawing internal boundaries within a country should be based on the will of the people��  However, in one of your documents, it appears that you already have drawn the internal boundaries into three distinct �states.�  How is the �will� of the people going to be expressed in defining a boundary that you already have defined?

What we have in our documents is our proposal from our studies. Our recent study has given us evidences that Eritrea can be divided into three territorial entities each with socio-economic and historical similarities. For Example the western lowlands people have many similarities in their way of lives, while the highlanders have another socio economic structure. Our proposal and the �will� of the people do not contradict given that these boundaries are proposals subject to amendments and not final or imposed decisions. In addition, we are willing to debate them with all concerned Eritreans. However, we look at federalism as a democratic process that must constantly change to fulfill the wishes of the people and interact with them and respond to their needs. In Nigerian federal experience, for example, the federal regional boundaries were drawn first by the former British administration who divided it into three regions. But later it was found that it could be more efficient to re-divide it into nine federal states. To-day, the federal Government in Nigeria is still holding and functioning well. In federalism all decisions are passed after referendum. However, we as federalist never impose decisions on the people. In the contrary, it is the people�s will that decides.

12- Can't the empowering the people at the village and wereda level guarantee enough autonomy for them to safeguard their different interests and rights?

This type of village, Wereda or Muhafeza administration can never empower the people. It is an outmoded system of centralised administration that never guarantees enough autonomy or safeguards the different rights and interests of the people living in that area. How much power the village enjoys dependents on the benevolence of the central government. It is a type of centralism done as a matter of administrative convenience, not for justice. The rights and obligations are not stipulated in the constitution and have no constitutional power supporting it. It could be given or withdrawn according to the needs of the party that controls the central government. On the other hand, it is impractical and unsustainable to have thousands of federal autonomous states based on villages and districts in our Eritrean context. Distinct communities within the regional state can enjoy special protection such as self-rule, communal powers and veto powers. However, at a national level there is a need to recognize that Eritrea is made of three distinct geographical territories and cultures that need to unite under federal arrangement. The three states would have full autonomy to legislate for their local administration, manage its civil and democratic institutions, levy in taxes and provide security to their citizens at a state level.

13- A unitary state has one gravitation point, the Capital city; you seem to be aspiring to create three gravitation centers for the three different and autonomous geographical regions of Eritrea whose history goes back to the period before the creation of modern Eritrea when the relations of the three regions was loose; don't you think this puts the unity of Eritrea at risk?

Not at all. Unity of Eritrea is far less at risk under federal system and more at risk under a centralized state with power and infrastructure concentrated in one region and one city. Unitary state with one capital city is more risky, because it creates centre�periphery features in the distribution of political, economic and social benefits. There is no justice, equality and balance. This is a common character of all unitary governments and failing states in Africa and other developing countries. It is these inequalities and injustices in unitary governments that cause disunity in a country. This been said, there could be a federal capital city where the federal institutions could be based. In the mean time the peoples of the federal states would be empowered to run their affairs from within their territories at a state level.

14- How do you see the demographic changes inside Eritrea during the last half century and how does that come in your program, do you accept it or you have another solution for it?

We see the demographic changes inside Eritrea during the past 50years seriously. We welcome natural peaceful integration and free movement of people, capital and labour force within the country. However, some of the changes have been deliberately imposed by the occupation forces or in collaboration with them. Such practices of deliberately marginalizing and disowning some segments of our society, using state machinery are not only unacceptable but are condemned as national treason against the unity, stability, harmony and peace in our country. 

For example, land confiscation from the original owners that has taken place during the time of Ethiopian occupation and still practised by the PFDJ will be reversed and returned to its owners. Eritrean struggle for liberation was conducted to ensure that Eritrea is restored to its rightful owners. That was the noble cause for which many gave their lives and many suffered inside Eritrea and in refugee camps outside Eritrea. It is a responsibility upon all genuine patriots to enable the Eritrean people to reclaim their lands and properties. We believe Ethiopian occupation and the subsequent policy of systematic displacement and resettlement of peoples were illegal. Those who took advantage of the victims suffering and exodus to settle in lands and properties not owned by them should obviously be legally evicted. Justice has to take its course. If Eritrean territories are not returned to their traditional rightful owners, then what is independent Eritrea for these people? Why would they be victimized twice, first violently driven out of their lands and properties by the Ethiopian regime, and now denied the right to return to their rightful land and property simply because others came to settle there? That would be dangerous and could threaten the entire concept of national unity and territorial integrity of the country. It would also give the victims ground for resentment, which could lead to the use of all means to reinstate their rights, if the state fails to do that for them. 

Under a federal system, those who, for farming or other reasons, moved from their traditional territories to other areas could be treated under a state law that might provide them with leases and use of land and properties in a way that does not harm the traditional owners� livelihoods and interests. Outside such framework, their presence on other people�s territories could be considered as internal invasion and occupation that could be a factor for conflict and long-term instability in the country. 

15-The PFDJ divided Eritrea into five different administrative regions; you are proposing a dividing Eritrea into three autonomous regions.  What is the difference between the two?

The EPLF/PFDJ administrative regions are not constitutional and do not recognize the cultural, historical and traditional rights of the regions� inhabitants. They are mere administrative arrangements that were introduced by the regime to suit its grip on power. It is very ridiculous to draw parallel lines that run from Akele Guzai to the Sudanese boundaries in disrespect to history, culture and administrative cost.  Such decisions without consulting the people have other ill objectives and motives. They are not based on the will of the people. It is illusory and will disappear with its designer.  

There is a fundamental difference between an administrative region and autonomous region. The later is enshrined in the national constitution with highest levels of independence from the central state. Our movement's drawing of regional boundaries is based on territorial, historical, cultural, economical factors that distinguish the various communities in Eritrea. The objective of this division is to protect this distinction of identity and territorial integrity of each unit and protect them from forceful assimilation by the dominant.  

16- Right after independence, the Eritrean government briefly experimented with a slightly de-centralized form of government by naming �governors� for the provinces and naming a ministry of Local Governments, at the national level, to co-ordinate their work.  It abandoned this project because, according to them, the localities did not have sufficient resources and skill set to have competent political bodies.  Leaving aside your differences with the PFDJ, do you think that in a nation like Eritrea with a high level of illiteracy and inexperience with democratic governance, some �states� would be at a disadvantage in conducting self-government?  And, in a federal arrangement, what is the incentive of the other �states� to help out the disadvantaged state?    

The current regime has never adopted a viable process of state building in Eritrea. The current regime has never adopted a healthy start for the process of state building. Once a good start has been made, State- building improves as it goes on with time, accumulated experience, economic and socio-political changes. No one knows what type of government is in Eritrea today. The mock decentralization of administration they spoke about at the beginning and soon dumped with the pretext of "lack of human skills" was not well- studied, it was for sheer political propaganda. It was not based on constitutional and institutional arrangements, but it was one of the arbitrarily decrees. 

A viable federal system of governance has a constitution and institutions. The government should build these organs because they are the most essentials and basic needs of federalism. Then, the initial endowments - physical and human will be studied, developed, and be put in harmony and well be distributed proportionally to the states. The incompatibilities and imbalances will be adjusted by fiscal policies and other financial arrangements at the local, state and federal levels. 

17- Is your regional division based on religious, linguistic or ethnic majority formula? 

It is based on territorial and geographical identity; it is also based on historical and socio-cultural factors.  

18-What will be the situation of the minorities in those religious majority areas be? 

In our multinational federal formula, the rights of the religious minorities, whether they are in the Christian-dominated or Moslem-dominated federal units (states), will be protected and respected. It is recognized that within each of the three federated states there are cultural, faith and ethnic minorities. These minorities would have cultural autonomy and representation in the state legislative and executive institutions. Their rights would further be enshrined in the regional and national constitutions. In each locality where they live, they would have proportional representation in state assemblies, municipality and village councils. Their rights could also be protected by some veto power arrangements in regional communal councils. In our recent social analysis publications we have tackled this issue in detail, and we advise the interested reader to refer to it. 

19-Don't you think a multi-party system of governance is a guarantee and it overcomes the worries about the violations of citizens' rights and equality concerns?

First, we would like to differentiate between, �multi party system� and �form of government�. Any form of government, whether it is "unitary democratic" or "federal democratic" has its legal and political structure. Multi�party politics is the system that promotes or supports the existing form of government. It functions inside the framework of federal or unitary government. Multi�party system cannot be compared either with federal form or unitary form of government. Multi-party is "a system" and not "a structure"; it is like the system of blood-circulation or respiratory system etc.... But a federal or unitary is a structure, a body. Without a body, there is no system. A system without a body is like a cloud in the sky. A cloud in sky can come down as rain or be blown in the sky.  

Multi party system has no guarantee to protect the rights of the people.  What structure of state / government can be convenient in Eritrea? Multi �party system is not enough to guarantee equality and citizen's rights without a decentralised structure of state characterised by its constitutional distribution of decision-making, division of power, and sharing of responsibility. Multi party freedoms are part of citizens� rights to organize and associate. However, for a multi-party democracy to work in plural/heterogeneous/diverse society, you need to have a federal system of governance. Multi party is not necessarily the answer for our problems nor is it something you can force on people to adopt. A party has to be created out of a free will of the citizens. There may come a time when parties would be created in their 100s and at others times decrease to two or even one. Having many and different parties does not necessarily mean we have addressed issues of diversity. We believe recognizing the historical territories and cultural entities and binding them under federal arrangement is the best arrangement that can address the issue of diversity.   

20-Do you subscribe to the old views of Ali Radai, who was advocating the partition of Eritrea into a "Christian Highland and a Moslem Lowland" and the undeclared support for the annexation of Dankalia to Ethiopia?

Let me first indicate to you that this is an ill fitted question, it is not an appropriate question to be directed to nationalists and patriots who have spent most of their lives struggling for the independence, unity and territorial integrity of their country. We are not living in the forties to be asked such an obvious question. Nevertheless, I will answer it if that pleases you or your readers.  

No, our proposal has no relation with the former views of Ali Radi (Allah yerhamu, wa yerhamna). No we do not. We believe in Eritrean national unity in diversity and territorial integrity. This can be achieved under federal system of governance. The partition proposal of the 1940s is no longer appropriate or functional. It was proposed by the British administration as one of the solutions to the Eritrean problem. Since then, Eritreans have chosen to preserve their country�s national unity and achieved its territorial liberation. We are now discussing the process of State building in post-independence Eritrea. It is for this reason that the system of governance becomes important and detrimental. We are not in the business of entertaining partition of Eritrea between Ethiopia and Sudan, or any other country for that matter. We are proposing a system of governance that we believe is more conducive to our diversity. 

You would have better asked me to respond to those who argue that "Federal system is not our priority" at the time but the struggle against the encamping regime. We say, yes it is our priority, otherwise why we want to remove the encamping regime if we are not sure with what are we going to replace it. I think struggling against the regime without concrete and functional sustainable substitute is a mob action that will take us to chaos and worse situation; it may lead us to another dictatorship. 

21-What are your positions on the old political views that were entertained by some Eritrean circles, regarding Tigrai-tigrgna, Afar land and Bejaland?

I am not sure what this question is referring to by stating �old political views�entertained by some Eritreans� or what you want to reach behind it.  However, we don�t doubt that some of these views had been entertained in the past. It is said that Weldeap Weldemariam and Ras Tesema Asberoum, had entertained "Tigrai-tigrgna" state, but they had soon abandoned it and whole-heartedly endorsed sovereign Eritrea with its present boundary after the British had recognized Haile Sellasie as the King of Ethiopia, including the Tigrai province. We all know the Ethiopian opposition's rhetoric that the EPLF and TPLF had some agreements in this direction. It could be political propaganda and smearing or there might be some truth in it, we don't know. The strong former alliance between EPLF and TPLF and the internal PFDJ unbalanced behaviour might have been also the reason behind some Eritrean opposition allegations against the PFDJ regarding this issue.  

We are also aware of a few Afar intellectuals who served with Dictator Mengistu�s Regime in the former so called "Asseb Administration Region" still entertain such views. However, we are not aware of any popular Eritrean Afars organization that aspires for such a dream.  

Bejaland is a historical and cultural entity and now it belongs to history books. No voice was ever raised in its favour after the British partition plan was defeated by the people of the Northern Sahel and the Moslem league Party. There is a small party in Eastern Sudan with the name "The Beja Congress" composed of some Hdendawa tribesmen. This party has never claimed any Eritrean territory.   

Eritrea is today a sovereign country and a member of the AU and UN; we are of the opinion that such views have no place in today's Eritrea. However, if injustices and the hegemony of certain chauvinistic segments over power and resources continue, we expect even worse developments. And that is why we want to impede such deterioration in time, before it is too late. 

22-What do you consider to be the non-negotiable basis of Eritrean nationality (Hagerawi aqwamat or Thewabit weTeniya)?

To begin with, Eritrean national sovereignty, territorial integrity and unity are non-negotiable. Equal partnership and sharing of power and wealth is non-negotiable. Traditional land and property rights are non-negotiable. They have to be restored to their rightful owners and all atrocities committed by the Ethiopian occupation and its collaborators have to be reversed. Our diversity as a society is non-negotiable. The language of our choice is also non-negotiable. Basic human rights and the rule of law are non-negotiable. We struggle hard to uphold national unity and territorial integrity. However, we consider the current trend of dictatorial chauvinism and its attempts to establish its hegemony by violent means at the expense of other Eritreans as a symptom for disintegration. If independent Eritrea fails to recognize and accommodate the rights of its citizens and regions, it would be legitimate for our different communities to seek alternative solutions. 

23-You say you struggle hard to uphold national unity.  You also said previously that the genesis of your movement goes back to the late 1980s.  Do you think that one way to gauge a movement�s commitment to diversity and unity is by analyzing the ethnic-religious makeup of its leadership?  If not, why not?  If so, how does your movement fare on the issue of diversity?   

First and foremost our model of federalism is a multinational federalism where rights of its individual components are respected and preserved. Historically, there is no record of federalism being applied in homogenous societies. Federalism is an agreement between more than two different ethnicities, cultures, identities, interests or values etc. It emanates from their will to form a union. Thus, all the partners share the power equally wealth and other benefits in the country. Our movement believes that if the process of federalism is accepted by the people it is not difficult for them to protect this process. We have preferred a federal system of governing, because Eritrea is composed of heterogeneous communities. To keep this diversity in unity the instruments available in federalism are more functional than the unitary model of governing, characterized by its imposing and enforcing methods of governing. 

24-Don't you think that the Eritrean nationalism is curved and finished after the experience of the struggle Era where a sense of belonging to one nation is established? 

Not only think, but we strongly believe that the Nation of Eritrea is formed. But, still the Eritrean people are deprived of their citizenship rights and neglected to participate in state-building. It is these rights we struggle to achieve. However, Nationalism is an on-going process that requires delicate nurturing. The struggle brought Eritreans together to fight a common external enemy. Now that common factor no longer exists. We need to create common factors based on our diversity. We also need to define the concept of nationalism in the context of our diversity. Today, a large segment of our society still sees Eritrean national history and identity as propagated and distorted by the EPLF/PFDJ chauvinist circle. Some have even accepted to throw the symbol of Eritrean nationalism and identity, the Eritrean blue with green olives flag, to have it replaced by an EPLF flag. Symbols have very important meaning in terms of expressing common bonds and nationalism. This is only one example. Many more could be cited in this respect. It would be naivet� to assume Eritrean nationalism has been completely curved and finished during the armed struggle. The armed struggle itself came to repel Ethiopian aggression. Where that aggression was felt most had witnessed an uprising earlier than those areas where similar aggression was not witnessed until later dates. So even the embracing of the armed struggle or even of the concept of nationalism and independence did not take place among our society at the same time and same level.

Thank you and good bye

Our pleasure.