IN PEOPLE’S NAME

“There is no worse mistake in public leadership than to hold out false hopes soon to be swept.” Winston Churchill

As an individual, I have always in mind and regarded history as a source material, which provides a record. Thus, if any person wants to heed about the things in life, no one is in better circumstance to tell - so long as keeping in mind the possibility to miss all those things where we are in no position to observe. But why did people want their story or history to be told?

Peace and freedom are two essential tips in human life. Freedom is a universal value that would come in time to all people in the world, and that we all had a responsibility to help speed the coming of that day from every angle. That is why we need to be committed to the large idea of rule of law and legitimacy in order to realize and practice the existence of tranquility.

At different moments, certain persons may rise to prominence largely as a matter of opportunity. It is pleasant to see a number using all the opportunities at hand in leading the populace to betterment all through such life span. To the contrary, however, we observe also commitments conked out and guiding principles revolutionize in the name of nationalism, reformation, opposition, etc. in order to fit some personal ambitions as well as short-term reaching.

Eritreans have stepped back from the brink of chaos quite more than a few times in the past several decades. In 1950s, civilization gasped in horror to cause suffering of the country at its capacity via annexation. Yet again, in the years of 60s, 70s and 80s where the world joined in a further step away from the fairness without any reaction to the injustices done upon the Eritrean populace and its struggle for freedom. Though the 90s was a bit of breath giving time, yet another story of war quashed the clear skies of people’s hope. And at the present, in the new era of millennium, the unfortunate border conflict with neighboring nation and former ally, Ethiopia, which has been extended to ‘no peace - no war’ situation. This time not only the world has make it very clear to give its back but the people have been disrespected, ignored, denied by the at most concerned few nationalists. More to these realities the country is almost in isolation from global international relations.

The extended dark shadows of the long war, however, were beginning to retreat. The mouthful air of serenity displayed the defrayal and straightening up of bountiful homes. Many were cheerful to see the long last economic and social tribulations being driven away in such a short instance during the mid of 90’s. Nonetheless, the light of truth, the fresh breeze of justice and synchronization are virtually languishing about this new, peaceful and free land. The rule of law marches out of the institution of justice down to an absolute rule. The pain, agony, the destruction and uncertainty are invigorating. The saga again and again is war, national security, in plea of sovereignty of the country and its people’s free will.

The country’s situation is heartbreaking, and so is the thought that many Eritrean citizens have come to see the motherland as enemy-occupied territory. Youth, running away from the country not only for better opportunities but with almost extreme dislike of the ruling system; the aged surrounded by wretchedness; and the children missing any slight hope as well as protection for their future. Politicians, akin to the existing figures, inside and outside of the country - and everybody else - who push emotional buttons, have themselves to blame as those sentiment are turning against them. The appeal is subtler than that and more conflicted.

The calamity is Eritrea has one of the largest groups of reform-minded in East Africa. It seems an odd combination, though: a good number of conservative society and a vast swath of modernists. Because of the war for independence, tens of thousands of its citizens had been forced to dwell in the Western world over the past few decades. Unlike other African countries, nearly all did not return home espousing the present government. For the most part, they liked the West, especially the life style of the United States and Europe, wealth and the so-called ‘democracy’ of the modern world to some extent. There may be also some other unknown reasons. Their return, however, could have, at least, contributed at shaping the present system not to commit such grave ill-mannered mistakes upon its own people. Especially, those who were fully aware the way the system was moving its political agenda. I would say that the presence of such people could have been played as a deterrent factor in many respects.

With the exception of small in number along with different raison d'être, many were confident in the then leadership in the hope that the country will become a prominent paradigm in Africa. That it will unleash economic reforms: that education will flourish; that general public problems will be moved out of the shadows of everyday life; that Eritrea will be sited in libretto of books of records eternally. Though they were in complete support, everyone was also exceedingly desperate to see encouraging changes in several sectors of the government. The problem, however, is for the most part Eritreans do not want to appear anti-autocracy, albeit they are. The possible reason for this might be that still the largest part of the population supports the existing leadership. In such circumstances, those citizens in disagreement retort by an unusual means. Some by assimilating themselves with a group which at least gives them a room to score upon others fault and backbite because they can say, look he’s an Eritrean who’s done such and such off beam ends. Others also either they keep themselves to a distance or remain quite. Hear no evil, see no evil. Prejudices, however, are always reassuring to those who hold them.

The current government may have not taken any formal vow of silence. As its existence is predicated on the singularly Eritrean conviction that what goes on during the morning in the office and what goes on during the evening behind closed doors bear no relationship to one another, and must always remain compartmentalized and separate. Probably it is to their credit that these people of the hours of darkness regard their roles as a kind of public trust, but in any case, these people who violate that trust put themselves in an untenable position. In that they had dominance, power, and pre-eminence, taken as a whole advantage over anyone in the country at present. However, their ties with the native country had already been severed. This may be an announcement, at least in part, why they no longer felt constrained to silence but why they chose to march down the horrendous path.

Acknowledging error is not weakness: it can be wise statecraft. It is a common sense to take a method and try it. If it fails, admit it frankly and try another. But above all it is worth to try something. At this instant the new generation is facing inferno in diverse arenas. The best effort to grasp and apply the lessons of what has gone wrong before need to be revealed in solving the forth-coming disastrous event.

To prevail over hostility, the regime needs to make accessible a room for the opponents, activist, and reformists. Every noxious version of opposition has had a free rein in Eritrea, and yet all liberal ideas and debates have always been closed down. Even the infant but fruitful steps the regime has allowed - publication of private press – have been followed by reversals. When the so-called “liberals” put forward a request suggesting reforms that would lead to a constitutional government, the regime arrested some of them and forced them to recant. Similarly, when several ordinary as well as professional Eritrean citizens stepped forward to present their self-discipline to resolve the disagreement within the leadership, they were branded as hypocrites and conspirators. The government continues to imprison those who refuse to take part in this charade. Such vicious and illegitimate act was extended to many ordinary citizens who candidly were trying to advocate and familiarize the public with the rule of law. With this kind of imbalance, is it any surprise that the public is more receptive to the fundamentals of the government than reformist thought? Eritrea is a bit conservative society. But it also has political and social elites who have reinforced and perpetuated that conservatism for their purpose.

Patience of the people should not be considered as submissiveness. This tolerance is not a manner of passivity, as the natives have developed a culture to remain quiet in order to circumvent conflict among each other; to avoid the demise of its own historic reaching; to embark upon obnoxious of unfamiliar guiding principles; to bring significant solutions to differences, and in anticipating the leadership will be heedful in the corollary of superfluous clash within the general public. Beyond any belief, Eritrea is bestowed with people who are more commonsensical and considerate to their determination than the leadership. If this is considered as passivity then, those people who are fond of pointing a finger should mind more about what should be unawareness and dilemma. They need to ask themselves why this is happening.

Finally, those who involve themselves in politics have to act in a way that doesn’t create a much bigger problem than it solve. In a jiffy incident I spent some time speaking to young Eritreans and asked them who their role models in the country are. “That is our basic problem,” replied one of them, a former student from the new colleges in Eritrea and deeply patriotic about his country. He carries on without waiting to my response, “We have no role models at all. Not one.” I asked if there was someone in the country or any other place he looked up to and he simply laughed. His laughter was not a simple chuckle but a deep sigh of sadness.

Young people have higher expectations. They are more optimistic and see through the shams of and phoniness more than the existing folks of an older age (with all due respect to all their bravura contribution). The aged people have become accustomed to the sham of Eritrean politics and are not as prone to challenge it. “Father Knows Best” is long since off the air. Let’s give an opening to other young people to prove their thoughtfulness, solidarity, and support. Success will depend not only on the military mission or past reputation but on the follow-on phase of wise nation-building process in different aspects and issues. If it is done with careful planning, international support and coordination with local groups, undeniably it has a big payoff. Let’s hope everyone will learn from the mistakes of our leaders ubiquitously. Once the rock starts going down a hill, there is nothing to stop it. God forbid.

Opposition: Symbolic Psyche v Practice and Adequacy

It has been more than a while now since I left my home country and started residing in my present consign. Sometimes I look behind to see what I left, as I always believe I belong to such place and environment. At other instances I would like also to witness what I benefited from my present status as a second citizen in others realm. I could not pronounce and formulate the exact expression, however, as I see the contemplation of many contemporaries being changed in the gush of circumstances.

In the past recent years, a lot of people were trying to get involved in the political atmosphere of Eritrean politics. It might be considered as a superior motive on one hand but on the other hand there is an unsolved question which crosses our psyche. An issue which could be framed as: Is it because everyone assumes the responsibility to contribute in such arena or is it for the reason to hit upon some attention only? As a result of such initiation, conversely, people could immerse themselves in to a vicious circle as an individual or in a group for various reasons: to overcome their horrendous dissatisfaction and annoyance, to save their interest from any damage, having confidence in supremacy of law and order, or to curb those in authority from being off limits etc, etc, etc. All these, however, could pilot too many an unusual behavioural change which could in turn be disastrous, more violent and revengeful act if not put into service wisely. This can hold true as emotions are becoming a common ground and part of the Eritrean diasporas leaving aside the merits of knowledge, expertise and experience.

It is such a superb exertion when people try to commend or criticize what they perceive and listen to. Indeed it is so civil to give your observations and share your ideas optimistically. Undeniably it is good to pin your ears back to your conscience. It is also polite to not put in the picture the bogus to create impressions. These are some of the trouble-free errands in which people could make the most of in life.

In considering these, it is very crucial to remember what the rationale behind the opposition is. Nowadays, what numerous people appear to recall is that the oppositions are in favor of full democracy. In fact, leaving aside the debatable definitions and points, the issues of democracy need to be raised as a more fundamental demand not only at the present but potentially any time when considered necessary. That is, as one of the gadgets to eradicate not only dictatorship but to craft a well organized institutional chain of command, responsible persona, healthy political atmosphere, etc. It is the belief of intellectuals as well as the people at large that the establishment of democratic institutions is the only way to root out government absolutism without violence and effectively.

However, anyone who wants to avail himself from the present situation should not just tune out in the name of opposition. It is surprising several individuals believe that you have only to denounce the current ruling government in order to be named as a resistant group. Just take your pen and write whatever crosses your mind, without giving a second thought to all the evils that could crop up as a result of one’s instigation. This is a fantasy of self-interest without any philanthropic principle to facilitate the mainstream concern. May be one can get himself in to a difficulty where the point of opposing inadvertently mounting to another level of hatred.

What are some of the plain and primary leading points in opposing any other disposition in power at individual or group level?
• To make sure that you have principles compatible to almost the internal situation and in consideration of the international arena.
• To point out the ideas and rules you are in difference with and the reasons why.
• To dedicate enough time and personality in achieving the goals aimed at.
• To be tolerant and optimist not only in practicing your ideas but also in sharing others thought as well.
• To ingenuously partake in shaping the ruling leadership whenever it is indispensable.

Why most of the opposition groups at hand, who abruptly come up with different names in time, seem to sound they are only the most concerned about the situation the country is facing now? Here, take me not that I do not understand or am in opposition to those who feel sorrow and are working for the good of change in resisting and opposing the present government. It is unquestionable that there are many citizens and groups who really are alarmed and work for such purpose to overcome the calamity the country and its people are facing. This being the patent certainty, almost all of the individuals involved in these different groups have been given more than enough chances in the past; either to shape the government constitution or in opposing its rule of governance and in rectifying other major and minor slip-ups. Most of them have been going hand in hand for years like almost nothing was happening, either inside the realm of the government or upon the rest of the populace (the outsider). And some of them, differing for many years during the armed struggle, had made a reunion after the country’s independence. Here, my point is only to tip at the foundational spot of ‘trust’.

Well now, should not we (the populace) and those who are entering in to the struggle for change ask initially what happened to the friendship and trust among each of them? Is it because one man was found very distrustful which made all the wrongs and evils to become real? If yes, what was the role these people could have played in such instances? Isn’t it possible to put forward your observation upon the real findings on time, or put together remarks, convince, and make your position clear and finally resign where there is no room to accommodate all other possibilities?

One should ask whether the oppositions are capable of overcoming their internal divisions and ousting a burly and so-called charismatic president at one time and still to some emotionally driven people. My point here is about the time lost to come to a unified agenda and solution. Should they formulate a specific governing platform of their own? Will opposition supporters, many of them distrust their leaders as much as they have an aversion to each other; show up to in sufficient numbers? And, perhaps most important, who will rule the country, and how, if the present government is forced out (talking about the collective and participatory rule)? These are some issues which need to be addressed by the oppositions sequentially to win the heart of the majority and grow to be trustful among the masses.

The lack of a thoughtful, trustful and charismatic leader who appeals to the masses is the oppositions’ greatest vulnerability. The most important enemy for the oppositions is not only the present government, save for abstention of the people. But one should ask why? It’s for the undemanding reason that they still need to build upon the populace the buoyancy on how to put his faith on their principles before engaging in a further blunder. Though these oppositions have some committed members, they need an excellent base in order to mobilize the large, so-called neither/nor segment of the population, who are skeptical of both sides.

It seems that the opposition coalition is more held together almost exclusively by its members’ dislike of the present President of the country and his advantage taking collaborators. A kind of following the belief “the enemy of my enemy is my friend,’ or at least “the rival of my rival is my temporary ally,” and they make alignments and split-ups time and again irrespective of whether their chosen allies are dictatorships or democracies. These groups have regularly promised to unveil their own policy platform, and regularly failed to do so. The presiding government has taken advantage of this political vacuum to supply the answer itself. The oppositions’ leadership is declared as a group of terrorist coup plotters, who obey “foreign masters” and baptized upon. Their program is accordingly said to end social programs and hand the county over to hyenas (azabè). Yet, they could not crack this barricade to benefit and succeed the majority’s heart and confidence even when the people and the country are at a desperate time and end.

Regretfully to say so but it’s sad, though not always, to see people organizing themselves for evaluation rather than giving priority to their veracity in life. It is in the name of people that loads of things are happening presently everywhere, whether it is inside the country or in other places of the world, where many Eritreans are scattered for breathing. Taking such situation, however, into ones advantage in order to satisfy your willpower is not acceptable or justified at any circumstance. This is factual in a sense, as the off-putting impact could be massive and dangerous to repair the damage done and afterwards there is almost no way to alter it to good where it reached the peak phase.

Descriptive things in due time and in an acceptable approach are also crucial to the endurance of any civilization. All this can be cuddled by the word “eloquence.” Let’s not forget, it is the dishonesty and recurrence of fabricated information which led the many regimes in Africa and other least developed nations to turmoil. Thus, distinguishing the comments given in the light of advancement to generate a feasible environment in the long run of the kick against despotism could create a viable atmosphere to a shared opinion and tolerance.

Is it that much hard to choose a leader or is it because we are told that it is difficult? Is it because we fear for a change that we want to make a bond only to what we are familiar with earlier (Kab zeytfelto melak, tifelto sheytan) or is it because there is a real possibility that power-gap can be created, akin to the information we listen to? So when is the time to get one? Or are we waiting for a messiah to be born?

I want to be hopeful – and there are some hopeful signs in many respects. I discern that governments change when they have to. The government, nonetheless, may probably weather this storm and continue to hammer back the oppositions. The haughtiness may buy off other critics for some years to come. But without wrenching change, Eritrea will not achieve the promise of genuine modernization that its liberals and reformers hope for. The young Eritreans who lamented viable atmosphere, an opening for the bright future, and role models need legroom and genuine coordination. Perhaps history will recognize us as the people and country that could have been. History is a material source.

The above specifics stated does not mean only to disapprove of what is factual and imperative at the present. It is not as well to stand and/or try to see at the progress of many constructive ideas as a piece of twaddle. I myself believe on the intact liberty of Eritrea and its political attitude and beyond the lot freewill of the people at large. The reader, yet, is left upon his verdict to evaluate whether or not the reasons were really as plain as this.