NHARNET ARTICLES / OPINIONS

EDITORIALS:

PFDJ Blunders and Accusations on UNMEE

May In Eritrean History

Fool’s Day of 1941 in Asmara:

Land Day in Eritrea?

EXODUS OF ERITREA’S YOUTH TO CONTINUE TILL ISAYAS’ EXIT

ELF-RC Looking Ahead, Never Back

Accountability and Rule of Law

December 1st, The Day Ona Villagers Perished and a Day of our Martyrs' Commemoration

EC designated a high level committee to coordinate with the broad opposition camp

ELF-RC and there fore Nharnet.com stand for unity and diversity:

Preaching and Practicing Democracy

Ibrahim Mohammed Ali, The RC Speaker, Speaks Out

JOINT STATEMENT 

#1/023/008/0004 

September 14, 2004 

A: An Overview 

Dear Compatriots,                                                                                                      

As a positive response to a call made earlier by the Eritrean Independent Democratic Movement – three Eritrean political entities, one professional organization, and two media-institutions met in the Washington DC area of the United States of America. 

The Eritrean organizations that held the three-day conference (August 20–22, 2004) are the following: 

1.   The League of Eritrean Intellectuals and Professionals 

2.   Eritrean Democratic Front – Sagim 

3.   Eritrean Independent Democratic Movement 

4.   Eritrean People’s Revolutionary Front.

It is only proper to note that the Eritrean People’s Revolutionary Front was not able to attend the joint meeting due to last-minute unforeseen circumstances. It did, however, submit a constructive document for consideration, and volunteered to abide by the outcomes of the deliberations. The assembly chose to oblige its request that it be accepted as one of its active participants, and resolved to ensure ways of facilitating its full involvement in the establishment of the incipient formal coalition. There is no need to list the two Eritrean media-institutions that attended, as they have since each reported on the conference, in their independent ways.

This multi-organization conference was truly historic: for the first time in the history of Eritrean politics – Eritrean intellectuals and professionals not only made sure that the playing field was even  (so that they could engage themselves on a free and equal footing) but actually took charge of devising the format and orientation of the proceedings.  Not as auxiliaries or appendages, but – mind you: as full-fledged representatives of their own vast socio-economic and socio-political configuration! Or, of their own dear LIkVgñ ´|—, as we say in Tigrigna.

It was a long overdue welcome step, a definite plus for Eritrea’s political and cultural pluralism, and a telltale measure of its readiness in the face of its modern challenges. Particularly for us hardened veterans of the armed struggle, who are admittedly the diehards of know-it-all exclusionary arrogance – this new, organized and self-assertive development (on the part of our educated and modern brothers and sisters) was a beautiful thing to witness, indeed, a joyful occasion – and utterly refreshing. We have reason to believe that the outcome of this conference is full of bright implications for the future direction of our country. 

 The first of its kind matter-of-fact political seminar began its work by insisting on the need of, first of all, introducing and structuring a conceptual framework that reflects the historical Eritrean phenomenon. Secondly, by identifying and defining the parameters of the Eritrean genesis and the entire gamut of its subsequent mundane and complex history – it infused the lively discussions with a pervasive sense of theoretical clarity. Thirdly, it took great pains to discern and elucidate the periodic qualitative advances and their attendant gains so far registered in the more than a century old Eritrean political experiences. Understandably, it was only after having isolated the yet unrecognized and unacknowledged new Eritrean paradigm shift - which it took upon itself the tasks of mapping out the course the nation ought to embark on, and the necessary articulation of the relevant policy initiatives that serve it best. 

B: A Prelude To The New Eritrean Paradigm Shift

Dear Compatriots,

The fighting generations of Eritrea had to dedicate themselves to the noble cause of building Eritrea up as a free and independent nation-state. They accomplished this monumental feat, thanks to their untold sacrifices. All this not withstanding, given the magnitude of the complexity of Eritrea’s predicament and the colossal problems that haunt it - it is futile to expect the old guards of Eritrean politics (whether they be in power or in opposition) to:

1.   Achieve an all-inclusive political coalition of national salvation

2.   Initiate, unfold - and begin experimenting in earnest with the enterprise of nation- building 

3.   Anchor Eritrea consistently in its pre-ordained path towards modern prosperity 

4.   Find and bring about a lasting solution for the Ethiopian-Eritrean conflict.

It is crystal clear that Isayas’s regime and its classic nemeses in the Diaspora are incapable of and unwilling to extricate Eritrea from the quicksand of the quagmire they have landed it in jointly – each, in their predictable and unmistakable trademark ways. It should come as no surprise to anyone that we do not spare the one-day-patriots-next-day-traitors of the so-called opposition from blame.  As we shall attempt to demonstrate, groveling at the feet of the Woyanes and the chauvinist Amharas, with the intention of seizing state power through a deliberately indiscriminate demolition job: are light years away from both state-and nation-building Eritrean ideals. Even when the power-monopolizing dictatorial party is being led, as is the case, by a man of mediocre intellect too prone to the ever-punishing shenanigans of a still hurting old baby - who is strangely devoid of the healing powers and blessings of the self induced catharsis.

It is hard to imagine an Eritrean state – or nation-building success stories while all the opposition sees at the end of the tunnel is a prized trophy to be conquered through a blind and destructive violence – irrespective of the fact whether such an offensive would be sponsored and supervised by the government of Ethiopia or not. But it has been quite a while since the folks in the so-called opposition unmasked themselves. They have no use for smokescreens anymore. That is why they are, in broad day light; scheming feverishly to collect what they reckon would be their due – if only they could pull-off Eritrea’s breakup! 

Indeed, the dialectics of the old guards of Eritrean politics is decidedly lopsided. On the one hand, we have the PFDJ positioned like a queen-amoeba to duplicate itself into younger and younger replicas of itself (Yikealo, Warsai, Tekie, Arkebe, etc…) whereas the ones in the so-called opposition (except the jihadists of Moslem-internationalist persuasion) can not even be expected to pass their ‘organized cause’ on to their own children; who are, for all intents and purposes, the citizens of the societies they were borne into and raised in - and who are Eritreans only by way of ancestry and heritage. To try to redress this curios but doomed imbalance by kowtowing to the perverse Ethiopian muscle is a cheap act of national betrayal devoid of any semblance of patriotism – and has nothing whatsoever to do with the priorities of the new Eritrean or, for that matter, the Ethiopian paradigm shifts. The ephemeral political-ideological Diaspora does not appreciate nor value the powerful impacts enlightened and principled venues of political commitment can have on influencing matters in Eritrea for the better. To the brutal, savage, bloody disciples of the entrenched Eritrean institution of politico-military liquidation, anything that smacks of a responsible and creative nation-building path: is unthinkably tepid and too ‘feminine’ to consider. They rather star on prime time with nothing to show for their sweat save self-comforting deceits lethal and retrograde bravura.

Under these prevailing conditions, the very idea of entertaining some hope that these old guards may find it in themselves the sort of impulse that generates fruitful cooperation that would alleviate most of Eritrea’s all-together avoidable pains and losses is, indeed: like beating a dead horse! It is of crucial importance to examine why.

To express it succinctly, the forces who championed our national freedom, and who eventually crowned the collective yearning with national-state sovereignty – have already (as far as fundaments go) updated and completed (nationwide and comprehensively) the requisites of modern state-building processes that commenced in the times of Italian colonialism. If this is an insightful observation, it nonetheless represents only half of the authentic picture. We are trying to convey; it is not only Eritrea that was the blueprint for modern national statehood. The personhood of the generations that fought to actualize it – was also itself, to put it crudely: nothing substantially more than the (subjective) agent of the portentous historical blue print. The moral behind this seemingly self-disparaging awkward proposition? By historical training: we are state builders, and not much of anything else. To the extent that this Eritrean personality is in any way deeper, more expansive, and richer than its transitional national-modern version – it owes it to the greatness and wisdom of its ancient lineage and civilizational heritage. No chapter of our modern Eritrean history has prepared us for or initiated us into the intricacies of a sophisticated modern nation-building adventure. True, modern mass public education, the freedom of expression, the right of association did flare up briefly during the British Provisional Military Administration – but were muffled in no time by Haile Sellasie’s Ethiopia. Forget about us marinating in them – we did not even have enough time to savor them. It can not be over-stressed that the wheelers and dealers of Eritrean political fortunes were not, are not – as far as the modern nation-building challenges and tasks are concerned: the North Star of Eritrea. To the contrary, they are its most formidable obstacles. It is not without reason they failed to deliver – when it comes to securing (as much as is humanly possible) a safe and peaceful environment that would prove conducive to Eritrea’s economic development and growth. It is not by accident or mishap they failed to deliver – when it comes to guiding gradually the already (basically or fundamentally) exhausted state-building venture to its historical and logical next level – that of the much needed and anticipated modern nation-building business.

How could we, in our right minds, castigate Isayas’ ruling clique and the easy-come-easy-go groups of the so-called opposition camp – in the same breath? Because we despise and detest anything that Tedlaukbitizes or Somalizes Eritrea. Because we are far removed from fighting for a mere replacement, a substitution, a change of guard. And most of all, because we loathe anything that prolongs Eritrea’s state of being left behind. Given Eritrea’s vicious plight (which is knowingly exploited by some and opportunistically underestimated by others) what is at stake here is none other than Eritrea’s redemption.  We are talking of an Eritrean redemption that is recognizable as well as measurable –

1.   By Its democratic and equitable way of life

2.   By its demonstrably superior material, social, cultural dividends.

C: A Double Quest

At this juncture, we would like to duel on the nation-building concept as a timely and inevitable Eritrean concern – in a manner that does not lend itself to any evasions. Historically speaking, may be it was rather intelligent of the devastated newborn Eritrea to have immediately put all its eggs in the basket of the state-building option as a primary priority. After all, whose business is it to ignore and forget, that thanks to our Amawian-Jebhawian the science and art of blatant politico-military liquidation is by now not only an institutionalized principle, but also, in the case of thousands and thousands of Eritreans, a deeply ingrained second nature? Small wonder, Eritrea’s cause could only win after it somehow succeeded in breaking through the over-your-dead-body net of officially declared and publicly touted total physical cancellation that was cast over the whole country? Besides, Eritrea is adjoined by two eight hundred-pound gorillas who are not that friendly.

On a more academic vein, almost all the old, mature nations of the world evolved from their respective socio-political statal peculiarities by gradually habituating their power- structure systems to the reforms dictated by the onslaughts of rising capitalism, and the demands of enlightenment. When the nobles of Great Britain ushered in the Magna Carta they were bent on rectifying the absolutist monarchical system - but the net effect of such a pioneering initiative was the opening of the door for British modern nation-building: apparently, along an evolutionary course. By contrast, if Bismarck’s Germany was the prototype of the modern cut and dry nation-state – it was brought about through a conscious, overwhelming military application that superimposed its modern ideal on a feudal and provincial setting. As a general rule, the more backward, provincial, and heterogeneous the society – the more it tended to lean heavily on state mechanisms as a unifying glue, at least initially. As an exception, it is only the United States of America that epitomizes the uniquely classic case of a state-building venture that is preceded or is right from the outset engulfed by nation-building initiatives.  The American experiment worked fabulously – in part, because the whole state edifice was centered on the human individual – not, in principle, on his or her ethnicity. What is pertinent to our situation is the observation that state-building is after all: nation-building; the qualifying point being that it doesn’t, can’t encompass it. Evidently, not in the short run anyways.

To recapitulate, a society can install itself as a modern nation-state:

1. By refurbishing its perhaps ageless national existence institutionally, and pave the way for the modernizing trends already working in its midst, example, Great Britain
2. Through a forceful dependence on state-building modern mechanisms and tools – largely as a way of insinuating itself out of its relative backwardness: without a show of democratic pretences – like Bismarck’s Germany of old, or modern Japan of the late 19^th and early 20^th centuries
3. By highlighting the essentials of wholesome nation-building right from the get-go, example the United States of America, and the lucky few who had the opportunity to emulate its legacy after the demise of European colonialism and especially following the breakup of the Soviet Empire, example: Czech Republic.
4. As a consequence of being forcefully introduced to the hazards of capitalist-industrial world by a subjugating alien power – inevitably producing native national democratic aspirations for modern state- and nation-building. 

Now, the job cut out for Eritreans is: how to temper the Eritrean state, how to make it citizen-friendly through a preponderance of a civic-modern presence that paves the way for a pluralist representative democratic intervention, on the one hand – and how to make it responsive to rapid material and cultural progress, on the other.  The catch is: without negating and nullifying Eritrea’s already registered modern state-building gains and the state itself. Incidentally, these two ideals (organized civic modern preeminence and the institutional assurances that facilitate sustained economic, cultural, social progress) are the fundamental components of modern-nation- building. We are aware that this last observation will irritate and infuriate those who swear by, live and die for their ethnicities. All the same, whether it is to their liking or not: we have a state to preserve - a civic-modern way of life to fight for, and an overriding array of material-cultural modern calls to answer for.

As we debate the connections between state-building and nation-building, it is safe to maintain Eritrean politics are, hitherto, run and managed by two ‘Anderobo’-like powerful camps, plus one. Roughly speaking, the first, presently in power (like self-intoxicating uppity ants) are only too happy to doggedly augment the many faceted powers of the state: oblivious of and even scornful to the possibility that they might be in the mean time running down the nation to the ground. Due to the mutual exclusiveness heralded and deepened by the Eritrean civil war, they are doomed to be state builders: that is it. To hear their theorists argue, it is sufficient that the ‘corruption-free’, ‘self-reliant’, ‘benevolent-progressive’, ‘constitution-based’ one-party dictatorship persevere in translating its various national strategies into action – and in due course, no body will even be able to tell a victorious Eritrean state from a successful Eritrean nation. Who can blame them if most Eritreans are skeptical and refuse to be taken in and leave their fate in the hands of those who: couldn’t even duly differentiate their ruling party (PFDJ) from the Eritrean state? How can they be expected to trust those who didn’t even hesitate from plunging a recovering Eritrea into an abysmal war? And who  failed miserably in turning their ruling party into a center of gravity for the coming together of civic-modern elements and groups of the nation?   The second, who are currently out of power, may not badge at all if the nation’s material-cultural modern aspirations languish, rote, or go to the pits: as long as they turn the state into the playground for their cherished ethnic civilizational preoccupations, and small time separatist pretenses and illusions. They are the protagonists of Eritrean nation-building as an arrangement that first and foremost caters to ethnic-civilizational predispositions. As is well known, the extremists among them comport themselves not only as if their ethnic-civilizational orientation is in itself an inbuilt miniature state system with inherent nation-building agendas all of its own; but they never tire of trying to spill it all over Eritrea. That is why their old guards in the Eritrean opposition, in moronic unison, officially invite and entice the Christians of Eritrea to administer their lives by the guidelines of the Old and New Testaments.  The shock of all shocks is they still take it for granted, to this day: that Christianity too is a political religion!

The third group is made up of the unenlightened and unprincipled Mangia-tuttos (the self-appointed, self-serving go-betweens) of Eritrea’s politics.  Let’s raise an incisive question which can go a long way in depicting their natures and the roles they play in our lives. Is an  ethnic arrangement the most reliable or ideal  cornerstone of Eritrean national unity, wherein the deciding criteria are human and democratic values - the nation being a more or less incidental context? Many will protest: we are not still chilling in a pre-Eritrean world! After all, the national is devoid of any civilizational purport if it does not consciously and organizedly ache for the cause of modernization that gave it birth and life, in the first place. Others will counter by claiming that there are no intrinsic elements in an equitable ethnic accommodation as the corner stone of nation-building that militate against the imperatives of the modern course. But this can be only true if two more value criteria are introduced into the equation, namely: the national and modern. Not surprisingly, the Mangia-tuttos obfuscate and tick-off sanctimoniously the benefits to be accrued on all fronts by diving into the bosom of an equitable ethnic arrangement that is the foundation of the national procession – as if said benefits are inbuilt and guaranteed automatically by the group-first kind of national unity. As if such unity is immune from sub-national and anti modern contents.

Truth is, even Eritrea’s optimal ethnic-civilizational accommodation can not play itself out in a no man’s land cordoned off and away from the pulses and vicissitudes of the on-going modern international processes. Firstly, the multi-ethnic, multi-national, and multi-ideological constituencies of the national rainbow can only afford to turn their backs on the imperatives of modernization at the cost of a steep price. Secondly, why do the Mangia-tuttos bestow on one part of the Eritrean rainbow (whichever it may be) a tacit, furtive, preconceived higher political legitimacy – without even a cursory glance at the demographic statistics (whatever they might be) and coefficients of relative efficacy, whosever they may be? Because the unenlightened and unprincipled Mangia-tuttos tend more often than not to gravitate towards the principle of least resistance – at the cost of genuine democratic and modern options.

How do we get rid of these debilitating negatives? We don’t. We can only push ourselves desperately to counter them, and at our best and most potent: hold them at bay. This is the national as well as civilizational burden of Eritrean organized civic-modern leadership. Of course, it could be said (as an after-thought) there is a lot of wisdom in collectively bowing to human, democratic, national, modern counsel.  For unlike the throwbacks, the Telaukbit-like opportunistic adventurers, and the unprincipled Mangia-tuttos of Eritrea – this counsel is historical, and as such: disinterestedly neutral. At least in the sense that neither the Moslems nor the Christians of Eritrea were the ones who invented, manufactured, and packaged our modern lot and its tribulations.

D:  Eritrea’s Plight

It is a historical fact that the socio-economic status of African and Asian nations was almost equivalent at the beginning of the second half of the last century. While visionary leaders in Asia lifted their peoples up out of poverty starting in the 1960's, almost all African leaders in the same time-frame have been presiding over massive declines in standards of living. The extraordinary economic successes of East and Southeast Asia over the last 40 years, and the likelihood that this miracle will continue to expand to India during the next 25 years, is one of the great events of our time.

In a democracy, the people have the responsibility of keeping the government honest. The people alone, if they are well informed, will have the capability to prevent the corruption of power, and restore the nation back on track if it goes astray. The people alone are the safest repository of the ultimate powers of government. Unfortunately, the government of Eritrea neither implemented the rule of law nor democracy in the last 13 years. Currently, Eritrea is mainly governed by presidential edicts; so far there is no working constitution in Eritrea.

The people, as the rightful owners of the government, have also been systematically rendered powerless in overseeing and tracking the activities of their leaders, supposedly the public servants. Based on a non-elected president’s decree, Eritrea was swiftly moved into a single-party state like any other typically corrupt single-party African state. The roles assumed by the people and its government have been reversed. The people have been turned into worthless serfs, while the government became the uncontested and sole monopolizer of power. Especially after the last war, all civic institutions have been rendered ineffective. Essentially, the president in Eritrea installed himself for life.

We are witnessing an era in which Eritreans everywhere are sensing a national crisis in the making. Unless and until all Eritreans stop and rethink their basic assumptions, there is a pervading feeling that the nation may be headed for a catastrophe as a result of undesirable centrifugal forces set in motion by the uninformed decisions of the government and the misguided opposition - hell-bent on meeting individual, organizational, and sectarian concerns, at the expense of national interests.

The issue at hand is, therefore, the lack of enlightened leadership in the current Eritrean political firmament, and the inability to unite the civic modern forces of the nation. Achieving understanding and cooperation among forces, who until recently have been locked into diverse and conflicting political persuasions is seemingly an uphill battle. But, it can be done. Eritreans need to understand the gravity of the leadership crises within the government and the opposition camp, and come to grips with the seriousness of the problem by setting the standards of Eritrean modern leadership. Ultimately, Eritreans need to combat both the crisis of leadership and the scourge of poverty as a united people.

Remember: our leaders wasted no time to promise us that they will turn Eritrea into another Singapore. What is remarkable: it didn’t take them time to make a veritable mess of Eritrea, instead. There was nothing random about the reversal. They never lacked drive, gumption, and sass. They had them all in ferocious abundance. How did the supposedly matchless heroes of Eritrean state-building end up failing the nation? How did the unparalleled giants of the Eritrean result oriented disposition prove to be so shockingly bankrupt of Eritrean modern value and recompense? An acute sense of and a pronounced reliance on politico-military centralism, an all-embracing and self consuming emphasis on work result, a macho attitude that scoffed at theoretical sophistication as unworthy labyrinthine quest left them psychologically, conceptually, institutionally, civilizationally unprepared in the face of the radically different challenges and tasks that national state sovereign-hood entailed. All they new was that they had to be their winning selves and conduct business as usual: for everything to go their way! It never mattered that an ideal order of priorities is the result of relevant conceptual orientation that is expressed in strategic terms. It is a historical or contextual clarity that can be counted on to generate the right frame of mind along with the constructively conditioned attitudes. 

It is an open secret that the East and South East Asian Countries whose magical successes earned them the nickname of tiger economies - were, by and large, for the most part led by one-party dominated ruthless patriarchal systems. What is pathetic, sad, and borders on the sadistic is that Isayas’ I-know-best one-man-party dictatorship could only manage in making us lose on both accounts: democratically and material-culturally! As the good book has it: mkÏS‡M& ‰oDDï§ÈM „ï‰�êM::

E: Diversity Management

Diversity is the quality of being different or unique at the individual or group level. Diversity does not ignore ethnicity, gender, age, political persuasion, etc., but rather recognizes that these dimensions are part of a much larger or more complex entity called nationality or nation. Furthermore, the concept of managing diversity does not advocate for advancing the opportunities of one group at the expense of another. On the contrary, diversity management advocates for the leveling of opportunities within our society. Hence, diversity management is a mindset that respects differences among our people, and seeks to develop Eritreans, all Eritreans, to their full potential, regardless of ethnicity, region, gender, religion, or ideology.

Our observation on the Eritrean cultural landscape verifies that the current regime in Eritrea and its nemesis have been tampering with the mosaic of cultural setup in the country, which through the centuries mutated to a collective tolerance and trust. Without a collective history, a society shares no common memory of where it has been, what its core values are, or what decisions of the past accounted for present circumstances. We have a quasi-military regime, imposing a military culture in Eritrea. When a societal trust continues to be eroded by a military leadership, which does not have the antidote to right its mess, it is time for grave concern, especially when the damages are irreversible.

In today's Eritrea, the issues of ethnicity, culture, religion, and gender are being propelled to the front as burning issues by Isayas’ regime and its rivals – to the extent of overshadowing the supremacy of the Eritrean individual. Prejudice persists and misunderstandings compound problems, bringing unnecessary tensions. Tensions among citizens can hinder progress and productivity, and create unintended costs when they end up in unrest and instability.

Failure to recognize cultural and religious differences can lead to strife, and unproductive neighborliness. The anticipated ideal Eritrean government that provides a much richer and diverse environment, a variety of viewpoints, and freedoms will definitely change conditions in Eritrea for the better. One of the motives of the next government in Eritrea must be to achieve a true multicultural environment in the Eritrean body politic. Hence, the reasons for building bridges of trust among the different segments of our society are:

• To build a tolerant, all-inclusive, transparent and accountable political environment.
• To empower a visionary, productive and supportive government.
• To attract the best and brightest people to government and retain them irrespective of their ethnicity, gender, region, religion or ideological orientation.
• To recoup the unrealized potential of individuals who settled for assimilation at the expense of their natural best.
• To demand that the government formulate the best solutions to people's problems by drawing upon diverse views.
• To guarantee the pursuit of a fulfilling life, freedom and happiness to every citizen.
• To make our people feel good, proud, and enthusiastic of who they are.

·         To uphold the rights of every Eritrean to freely participate in shaping the destiny of the nation.    

F: Creative Tension     

   One does not need to read carefully to gather that our concise discussion of diversity management touches on nation-building, chiefly from the need of a constructive frame of mind and its perspectives. But why does this rich concept, this helpful tool sound mockingly distant, and too good to be true? Is it because since the Eritrean society is generally backward and multi ethnic that Eritrean people are allegedly the repository of the convenient and self-absolving theory of so called ‘social diseases’? How did it come to pass that our ethnic fabric gets to be synonymous with social pathology? How do we substantiate the idiom that the Eritrean ethnic = disease? By the way, where does the disease sprout from: the relative left-behindness or the ethnic fabric? The relative backwardness is by its very nature transitory; it can be washed away by the flow of modern material-cultural progress. The Ethnic stays.  Small wonder: it is us! Our conceptual inadequacy lies in the fact that we are experts when it comes to hiding from our perceptions that our ethnic differences represent, in their formal or classical forms, different philosophical-ideological outlooks, varying civilizational ultimate ends. Which Eritrean ethnic civilization do we select to evaluate, weigh, and judge the rest with? None! This categorical answer implies that the Eritrean society can’t thrive without the virtues of tolerance, moderation, and civility. We are proud to acknowledge that the Eritrean people have them in abundance. It is their alleged representatives, namely, the Eritrean political organizations that are in a dire need of these vital qualities. What is striking and revealing is that there is no Eritrean political organization which doesn’t sing the praises of political dialogue: alas, without even the remotest inkling that dialogue is a central aspect of diversity management.

  What tolerance, moderation, civility, and dialogue mean is that no Eritrean ethnic civilization, no political  ideology, no Eritrean institution deserve to be the final judge of Eritrean ultimate ends. Fortunately for us, we have at our disposal what the human race can proudly show for its survival and continuity: the world-historic human civilization at its cutting edge. The modern global civilization doesn’t even have to be our ultimate measure – it is more than enough that it be our best source of reference. Any Eritrean ethnic group that claims it possesses or is the heir of an alternative civilization that is superior to this modern reference that enjoys not only the dignity of universality but is also backed up by empirically verified accomplishments will necessarily invite upon itself the never too shy and up-close scrutiny of: put-up or shut-up.

   Since the Eritrean journey is, at any time in history, a living confluence of its destiny (given civilizational stage) and its procession (the not only utilitarianly purposive, but the day to day colorful, vibrant, existentialist life) it follows that the Eritrean Grand National Accommodation or Pact be a straining formula that triggers needed mutual readjustments, continually. By definition, in this creative tension there are no ethnic groups that arrogate to themselves the invariably angry voice of the demander while they relegate the rest to the role of the beleaguered obliger. Because everybody is in some fashion a demander, an obliger – simultaneously.

   To summarize, the destiny related challenges and tasks of a still left-behind Eritrea are all too serious to be taken lightly. As we demand or oblige, as the case might be – somebody better see to it that the sum of our give-and-take add up positively not only on the side of our civilizational destiny, but also on the side of our national procession. Though it is too much of a painful anathema to admit (that is, while Eritrea is still left behind) the Eritrean national procession is, in the final analysis, greater than any given Eritrean civilizational stage. Granted, it can be envisioned that a given impending civilizational stage (say, post-modern Eritrea) can attain a significance and urgency of immense proportions. Still, stages come, stages go; but always all within the day-to-day, and therefore, eternal national procession.  It is no bodies business to botch it: for any reasons whatsoever!

G: What We Present For Diversity Management

Dear Compatriots

It is incumbent on us to present to all Eritrean individuals and groups the criteria that inform our work respecting the nature of an all-inclusive national political alliance:

1. An unsullied history of consistent faithfulness to Eritrea’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Eritrean patriotic memory is, after all, not unlike that of the elephant: it can forgive and forget – but only in the face of genuine contrition or, at least, a publicly expressed thorough self appraisal.
2.  An unqualified support of and solidarity with the unity of the Eritrean people

3.   A principled backing of a unitary state system  – which does not rule out in principle a necessary degree of qualified decentralization, where appropriate

4.   Full acceptance of a national life founded on sound, tested, modern bedrocks of constitutionality

5.   An enlightened recognition that Eritrea’s future is (of necessity, if not by choice) an open-ended national procession – periodically bound to be duly influenced by the stages of its continuous material-cultural progression

6.   The equality of the sexes that is not compromised by any anti-woman verses or traditional maxims

7.   Celebration of the fact that Eritrea’s ageless history and rainbow heritage are the paramount wellsprings and final arbiters of Eritrean national identity and pride.

We need no reminders who the most vocal protagonists of the nation-wide political coalition are.  Suffice it, that their loudness and insistence do not in themselves – make them champions of modern Eritrean redemption. For one thing, their warped comprehension of modern-nation building is rigidly confined to ethnic civilizational parameters. Even their much-touted all-inclusive slogan has never been that inclusive in practice. We are way past the point where we may find ourselves playing the role of unwitting stooges of a fake banner that does not mean well to Eritrean modern nation-building endeavors. 

Ethnic accommodation is not a one-way ticket, because in Eritrea we are all ethnic, at least, in some measure. Our principled understanding is:

1. An equitable ethnic arrangement is for the people, as an embodiment of the collectives that make it up.
2.  An equitable accommodation for political organizations however, is pluralist political democracy
3. To deliberately confuse these two different democratic arrangements of our national life invites an ethnic civilizational tit-for-tat, which does not necessarily guarantee that the best interests of the whole and the dignity of the individual will prevail. After all, it is not every Eritrean child that is born into a ready-made iron-clad world of male supremacy. Those who are not have always had to cater for themselves and learn (from childhood onwards) how to hold their own: or remain pushovers for life. Hence, those who are conditioned and predisposed to feel entitled that they can likewise lord it over the rest -  they had better pause and take a hard look at the whole, and think twice. We are saying what needs to be said: there are no pushovers in Eritrea.

H: From Dictatorship To Democracy

 Quiet a few voices are beginning to actively advocate for a paradigm shift in Eritrea's internal dealings with its citizens and external relations with its immediate neighbors and the rest of the world. The Eritrean government is undergoing tremendous pressures of local and worldwide criticisms. Eritrea's relationships, internally and externally, are shifting as radically and irreversibly as a land undergoing a major earthquake. Sooner than later, we have to learn how to get along with our neighbors, in particular, and the global villages in general. Through it all, however, the regime in Eritrea remains resistant to new ideas. 

If you don't know where you are going, a map won't help. In the seminar, we discussed how Eritrea could seamlessly transition from the culture and politics of a dictatorship to that of a democracy. Hence, our destination is a democratic modern Eritrea. The map that will help us to arrive at our destination of democratic Eritrea could be constructed using the techniques of the paradigm shift. In a step-by-step process, such a transition could be actualized systematically by considering the core parameters of the dictatorship and democracy paradigms, respectively. A transition leadership will see to it that such a transition is set in motion until the goals are met.

I: Resisting The Implementation Of Democracy

Why does the Eritrean regime refuse to implement the rule of law and democracy? In general, why does the dictatorship in Eritrea resist new ideas? The answer is simple: New ideas cause change; they disrupt the status quo. To the dictatorship, such new ideas create uncertainty. The regime feels uneasy because they get confused about their place in the new arrangement of rule of law and democracy. In fact they very well know that the ideas that brought them to where they are today, are not helpful in the new playing field of democracy, law and order. Hence, the regime and its clientele are scared they will lose power. In other words, the ruling elite is status quo driven; they are not well equipped to either anticipate or initiate needed changes. Obviously, the transition from dictatorship to democracy is definitely a fundamental change.

Consequently and predictably, new ideas are shot down and trivialized by the regime. To survive, in the worst-case scenario, it is safe for the regime to keep Eritrea in the mold of the national liberation ethos. Anyways, the regime assumes that the ideas that made them successful in the past will carry them into the future. In other words, they believe that the ideas that brought them to where they are today are the same ideas that will take them to tomorrow. On the contrary, our people are asking, "What improvements (reforms) have you made for us lately? Where is the rule of law and democracy that our martyrs died for?" Good questions, but since the leaders are not equipped to lead the transition from a dictatorship to the paradigms of the rule of law and democracy, no fulfilling answers are coming from them. In the mean time, Eritrea cannot afford to wait in limbo.

J: Paradigm Shift And The Japanese Experience

In the seminar, we first used the example of Japanese experience to help participants understand the application of the technique. What were the unwritten rules (paradigm) of Japanese products in the 1960’s? What were the unwritten rules (paradigm) of Japanese products in the 1980’s? When the paradigm in Japanese manufacturing shifted between the 1960’s and the 1980’s, every worker’s contribution went to zero. They had to be trained anew in a new paradigm. The result was the Japanese revolution in manufacturing. The following table depicts the contrasting paradigms:

In the seminar, participants were asked to list their judgmental statements about Japanese products in the 1960’s and in the 1980’s, respectively. The result is depicted in columns 1 and 3 of the above Table. Once these parameters were documented, participants were then asked what kind of leadership could make this kind of paradigm shift possible. Their guesstimate of what kind of leadership it took to make it happen is captured in column 2.

The enhancement in product quality that the Japanese accomplished between the 1960’s and the 1980’s is historically unprecedented indeed. In order to guarantee their future, the Japanese made a deliberate investment in implementing a successful change beginning in the 1960’s. They adopted a new series of rules and regulations that helped them attain zero-defect production.  This new paradigm enabled the Japanese to involve their workforce in perfecting products. This new style of manufacturing management was referred to as participatory, zero-defect or Japanese management. And soon, this new paradigm was institutionalized nationwide, successfully.

We chose deliberately to begin the diagrammatic presentations with the Japanese (production) paradigms to hammer the all-important fact that the decisive factor in the considerations of the shift is consistently technical: even when it touches on non-technological aspects of life, such as culture, attitude, etc. The first point to make is: especially in a transitional setting of any kind, the role of the technical approach grows dramatically. Eritrea is a transitional national-modern reality. So much so, even the questions of what kind of a socio-political system to adopt, an economic orientation to subscribe to, etc. incorporate a pronounced technical approach – as such queries can’t meaningfully be treated outside the terms that define Eritrean reality. The historical Eritrean phenomenon is: national-modern.

We complemented it with governance paradigms to highlight the human, democratic dimensions of the rainbow Eritrean context or setting. Our multi-ethnic, multi-national, multi-ideological lives have the combined effect of overpowering the purely technical national-modern approach. The second point to make is: if the purely historical-technical Eritrean national-modern approach demonstrates staying-power (as it should) even in the face of the value-laden contextual (human, democratic) ethnic conflicts and strife – the net gain to the Eritrean community is not only in a tested, clearer, more integrated historical and contextual clarity, but also in a multi-faceted conceptualized and internalized wisdom. With these two accomplishments safe behind it, the Eritrean society can’t possibly fail.

K: Paradigm Shift And The Eritrean Experience

The real question is: What do you do to turn a failed individual, failed company or for that matter, a failed state like Eritrea around? Again, the concepts of paradigm and paradigm shift come handy in tackling such challenges. The impact of adopting new ideas and the implications of unexpected changes in all aspects of our life - politics, culture, and technology, are smoothly handled employing such a technique. Understanding these concepts will help us in identifying the development of "resistance to change," which often keeps great ideas like democracy and the rule of law from being accepted and implemented. As stated above, to the dictatorship in Eritrea, implementation of such "new ideas" has become a direct threat and a nightmare to their very survival. They know what their deficits are, and hence, they know what they are doing to cover up their ignorance. Do we, the people and the opposition, know what we are doing? Are we really ready to be a better alternative?

The parameters in the dictatorship or democracy paradigm describe the cultural norms in the dictatorship or the democracy paradigm. Generally, dictatorship is characterized by undemocratic values of Control, Order and Predict (COP). On the other hand, democracy is characterized by democratic values of Align (unite + lead), Create and Empower (ACE). Using the Japanese example as a basis, participants cooperated to define the dictatorship and the democracy paradigms as follows:

Dear compatriots,

Fill out the second column (transitional leadership) and as an Eritrean you will have your job cut out for you! Ponder on how to bring about the transitional leadership for a present day Eritrea that is fit to tackle its national-modern and ethnic challenges - and you will have taken perhaps your first step in the direction of a better Eritrea.

If this last presentation is deemed as somewhat too academic by some, we apologize. Let’s now try to relate it to our own Eritrean reality. If the truth be told Isayas’ regime has always been viscerally and intrinsically inimical to the supreme need of conceptual clarity as a preface to any meaningful civilizational endeavor – even as an occasional antidote to its pathologically commando like nature. If we would tabulate the divergent contrasts between the norms of dictatorial and democratic governance environments, Isayas’ regime would flank them all. Plus, when you vulgarize and reduce Eritrean democracy, as Isayas apparently does – to mean equality before the law and opportunity: and if you highlight the latter at the expense of the former – one thing you don’t do is drag an already emaciated and poor country to an all consuming war. You have no business failing on both counts. Observe, that if Isayas’ ‘equality before the law’ was real – it would have served as bare-minimum skeletal basis for a democratic version of Eritrean nation building. Correspondingly, if his ‘equality before opportunity’ was genuine – it would have advised him cogently and in no uncertain terms to refuse and avoid the war for as long as he could. You end up losing astronomically on both ends. Yet, in the world of Isayas’ henchmen and henchwomen his KoŠ†p s§mkDê fake star shines brighter than ever!  In private moments, one wonders whether it would be really past them to sneak-in and top-off the denouement with a parting shot of: –‘q }HÍa! 

Much like in the new Japanese paradigm shift where every worker’s contribution had to go to zero – the Eritrean zero is signified by the gag, the vacuum between Eritrea’s state-building and nation-building tasks. At this zero point, we solemnly declare that virtually all of us living Eritreans are novices of a novel modern proposition, namely the modern nation-building mission. This is the gist of the new Eritrean paradigm shift. Let us with all modesty learn to build a modern Eritrean nation not solely along ethnic lines, but primarily along a higher civilizational calling. It is time we brainstorm one another in order to grasp intimately the ingredients that make our modern journey tick! 

L: Elements of The Eritrean New Paradigm Shift

It is time we condense what truly constitutes the new Eritrean paradigm shift:

1. The momentous realization that the national liberation ethos, the hubris of the national democratic orientation was historically geared and equipped (at the level of sovereignty) to complete and update the almost a century old state-building chores, as opposed to the daunting new challenges and radical tasks of our modern nation-building quest. We are in for a gentle but firm adult-like confession – that as far as modern nation-building goes we are emphatically beginners, learners, students, apprentices first. There is no shame but pride in learning for one’s sake. There is no loss but gain in learning for the sake of the nation.
2. The immensely eye-opening and enlightening intimation that Eritrea’s future is not merely an oxymoronic fusion, an undifferentiated mass, a haphazard amalgam of the trite so called national democratic dichotomy. To the contrary, it is an uneasy and dynamic marriage of the needs of the Eritrean national procession, and its necessarily sequenced civilizational destiny.
3. Furthermore, these two components of Eritrea’s journey and their contradictory and complementary natures and demands be intimately understood. So that they could be reconciled and managed; not only along human, democratic values – but in the light of Eritrea’s modern civilizational destiny, and in context of the national procession itself. That, therefore, Eritrean ethnic equity is after all, at its best: an awkward and tense compromise between those who are bound to promote (for ethnic civilizational reasons) the kind of national procession that comes easy to them and is nearer to their hearts, on the one hand; and those who likewise highlight the calls of civilizational progression (again, for mainly ethnic civilizational concerns.) And the all important neutral and disinterested admission and acceptance that the march of modern globalization favors neither the former nor the latter preoccupations – as long as the Eritrean national procession and its civilizational destiny are influenced by the panoply of human, democratic, national, modern values and policies.
4. The clear-eyed awareness that it is not the old guards of Eritrean politics and their new parrot-like task-fed extensions - but a diffuse proliferation of civic-modern reflexes and dispositions, and their preponderant organized intervention can successfully implement the cues of the new Eritrean paradigm shift.
5. Since we were born into and raised in a generally backward environment, the dignified generational resolve not to bequeath to our children a bleeding and left-behind Eritrea – under any pretexts.

M: Conclusion

Beloved Citizens,

It can’t be overemphasized that this period of our national history is the most glorious and brightest chapter of Eritreaness. The reason should be as clear as daylight to every Eritrean. The Eritrean personality and conscience are no longer the reactive products of European and Ethiopian colonialisms. For the first time (as Eritreans) we have won and secured, in the land of our ancestors, a sovereign existence for ourselves and our offspring that not only entitles but empowers us to be free agents, partners, beneficiaries of the historic global civilization. We are now in a position not only to assert, but also to define ourselves proactively.  And perhaps what is more telling - to design the contours of our future, to engineer our destiny: on our own. Let no body make any mistake, given the immensity of what is at stake: we simply have no room for a reversal of fortune.

Considering the gravity of Eritrea’s problems, and aware that failure is no option, the joint meeting stressed the decisive role of a civic modern realignment as the most promising road to Eritrean redemption. The supreme task of this national coalition that is in the offing is to create a broad multi-party cooperation in Eritrea as the qualitative continuity of and alternative to the old-fashioned one-dimensional mutually exclusive state and counter-state-building forces. 

To begin with, we have made it abundantly clear the kind of national unity we will be working for.  There is not much irony in the fact that it is exactly all the old guards- dominated political organizations that have failed to be centers of gravity for democratic realignments. It is the coming together of all the civic-modern elements and groups of Eritrea that can vouchsafe that the opening up of Eritrea for pluralist democratic participation will not lead to the disintegration of the nation, but prove to be a brake and a bonus for the Eritrean nation-building cause. And this absolutely requires an indefatigable but patient work: no shortcuts will do! It is this realization that constitutes our point of takeoff – and we are determined to build a new bridge – even if we have to start from scratch. Secondly, as far as the hurdles Ethiopia throws our way – even after we have solved effectively all of our ‘domestic’ squabbles to the satisfaction of every stake holder, and adopted the most rational system of governance imaginable, to put it circumspectly: there is no guarantee that the ill will and animosity of the Ethiopia of the Woyanes and Amharas chauvinists towards Eritrea will cease and desist. That is precisely why we welcome a nation-wide political coalition that doesn’t exclude anybody, save those who are the avowed or furtive collaborators of our eight hundred-years-old detractors to the south.

 Needless to say, the joint meeting examined in depth and analyzed rigorously the by now sixty years old unyielding anti-Eritrea Ethiopian intrigues. After all, it is not only Eritrea’s relative weaknesses that invite Ethiopian aggression. The more debilitating, the deadlier danger to Eritrea would be: the failure of knowing how to deal with, and trivialize, the lethal but self-defeating Ethiopian obsession. Our land may be small, our numbers few, and our problems legion: but we are no body’s helpless playthings. Ethiopia can’t checkmate our hard-won national sovereignty, and quarantine our modern pace indefinitely.   It is only fitting and extremely urgent that we tackle the crisis of leadership in Eritrea and unify our people and frustrate the unholy and sinister dreams of our enemies.

We expect the Eritrean government to be responsible and not initiate any adventurous gamble. We plead with our brothers and sisters in Eritrea and enjoin them to be patient and wise. Let the onus of unleashing another war be Ethiopia’s burden.

We call on the international community in general, and the guarantors of the Algiers Comprehensive Peace Agreement in particular, to shoulder their responsibility and do their best to help stop the blood bath and mindless destruction that another war would bring about by exerting meaningful pressures on the Ethiopian government to abide by and implement the final and binding decision of the Eritrean Ethiopian Border Commission. 

Last but not least, the joint meeting set up a consolidated organ assigned with the mission of realizing the salient aspects of its resolutions.

Long Live Free Eritrea!

Eternal Glory to Our Martyrs!

Consolidated Committee

DISCLAIMER:  The author/s  contributed  for this article/opinion and is/are solely responsible for its contents.

Send your articles/opinions to:   webmaster@nharnet.com