Code of Conduct

I am writing this article as a commentary on an article published a couple of days ago on Asmarino.com addressed as an open letter to Mr. Abdella Adem, Chairman of EPM. Having noticed that it was an open letter to EPM, my interest was aroused thinking that it would address EPM’s (unfortunately) ambiguous position on the border decision.

Instead, the open letter on Asmarino.com contains an appeal to Mr. Abdella to divulge privileged information and secrets as a way of cleansing or repenting his ‘sins’ of being part of a repressive regime. From time-to-time, some writers goad former members of the regime, and generally former fighters of the struggle for independence, to come clean by divulging their ‘hidden secrets’. Some of my fellow Eritreans lament that by not divulging the regime’s dirty secrets that these former members of the regime are failing to deliver full blow to the regime. These calls intensify, especially, when yet another member of the regime abandons the regime.

Unfortunately most of us fail to put our questions within a context. Before we demand that these former senior public officials divulge these information we must ask ourselves a number of questions, such as

1. What are the implications of divulging these privileged information? Could these privileged information compromise the National Security of the nation?

2. What kind of precedence are created by divulging these privileged information? If every disgruntled senior public official spills her/his beans in public, could not that jeopardize the entire public/civil service and, in the end, the whole nation? If we allow and encourage senior public officials to divulge secret information under one circumstance, i.e. say because the regime is so brutal, who determines when it is acceptable to divulge information and when it isn’t? By encouraging former senior officials to breach their universally understood code of conduct, are we contributing to degradation of (whatever is left of) the public/civil service in Eritrea?

The most naïve and dangerous misconception some of us have is that we expect people to behave and act in certain ways under one circumstance and then expect these same people to make 180 Degree turn around and behave different under different circumstances literally overnight. History teaches us that behaviors and actions deteriorate quickly, but take enormous time and energy to turn them around into positive behaviors and actions. It is for this reason that we should not encourage our senior public officials to behave in any other manner other than what would have been expected of them in free and democratic societies. We should only stride to keep them accountable and expect code of conducts that are becoming of senior public officials. Let us keep the momentum in positive directions only. If we encourage the deterioration of these values, which could happen quickly, we may end up throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Some may argue that the ‘sins’ of this regime must be exposed in order to get rid of it. Our issue against the regime is not about what happened in a specific battle. Our position towards the regime will not change either way over revelation of some privileged information or secrets. The issues that concern us are out in the open; and there are plenty of them. Our issue with the regime is about the rule-of-law, implementation of the Constitution, our Rights and Freedoms, transparency, accountability, justice and other democratic values. We know many brothers, sisters, neighbors, friends, and many other fellow countrymen who are suffering under PFDJ’s blatant human rights abuses. If what we already know is not enough motivation for us, then nothing else will.

Let’s say Mr. Abdella told us some secrets; what would we do with that information? It would make some lively conversation in some bar like, “do you know how bad the regime is? It is so bad that …” “Did you hear the latest … this one is a big one, you have to buy me a beer for this one, …” There will be some spin and counter-spin one weekend, then we will want more and juicier secret for the following weekend. I assure my readers that many of my fellow countrymen may relish on the latest ‘secret’, but fail to analyze the bigger implications and the precedence it may create. Instead, before asking for more information, we should step back and analyze the bigger picture. What we should be asking is what can be gained and lost from divulging each additional ‘privileged information or secret’. In general, senior public officials may tell us secrets, but it will not advance our cause anymore than other burning issues, and yet may only end up jeopardizing National Security, while compromising certain codes of conducts expected of senior public officials.

As the old saying goes, ‘Loose Lips Sink Ships’.

Some of my fellow countrymen will argue that these senior public officials must divulge secret information so that we can learn from past mistakes. But what and how do we learn by having these secrets divulged in a public and haphazard way? After chewing the latest secret over the weekend over some beer, we will have learned barely little more than the last secret.

Of course, these secrets should not remain hidden, lest we fail to learn from our bitter experience. But there is time and place. The time will be in post-PFDJ democratic Eritrea. In order to learn the lessons from our past mistakes, public (and if necessary judiciary) commissions/inquiries should be established in democratic Eritrea and be led by competent individuals to extract these secrets in a systematic manner for the purpose of systematically documenting it and promulgating laws that will redress and address the various issues, concerns, errors, and lessons learned from the public inquiries. Witnesses (former and current senior public officials) will be called, or if necessary subpoenaed, to testify under oath in front of the commissions. As witnesses will be testifying under oath and testimonies cross-examined, there will be far less inclination to distort the truth, or else it would be perjury. The whole truth but nothing but the truth shall prevail. If they fail to tell the truth, there will be other witnesses who will testify against them. Necessary documents will be brought into evidence. There will be rules of evidence, hear-say may not be admissible. Facts will be separated from fictions.

If certain former senior public officials feel they will not live long enough to testify in democratic Eritrea, they could write down, record it on audio or video, and keep it in safe keeping with people they trust. It will be presented to the concerned public commissions.

Where senior officials are required to testify in public commissions, they will be deemed to have not breached their code of conduct as senior public officials. This is the type of behavior and code of conduct we should encourage in our public officials. If Eritrea is to overcome the chaotic nature of PFDJ’s regime, the utter failure of rule-of-law, utter failure of principles, and utter failure of ethics, we must set our standards much higher than PFDJ’s, and not lower them. If Eritrea is to grow into a mature and viable nation, we must reign in our emotions and petty politics; and instead enrich our understanding of how certain systematic and highly institutionalized societies function. Especially those of us who live in Diaspora are in a unique position to learn from the experiences of others.

As non-public officials, we, ordinary Eritreans, are naturally allowed to speculate as we see it fit. Yet, if our chats over coffee is going to be educational as well as entertaining, we must understand and analyze certain limitations. In fact, we should be alarmed if too much privileged information and secrets are flown around like an afternoon soap opera. It is also up to aspiring politicians to douse the flames of rumors if they see it fit. And yet, these aspiring politicians must walk the tight rope of just feeding enough information to the public without compromising their former privileged position.

It is not necessary for former public officials to divulge secret information as a proof of their repentance of the regime before joining the opposition camp. It is not a rite of passage or initiation. For now, it is suffice to say that as long as they are actively engaged in opposing the regime, we should not ask them to breach universally understood codes of conducts for senior public officials. We will leave our concerns and reservations for future public inquiries.

On other thoughts

1. It is worth to note that in waging a struggle against the regime, it is important to select leaders who are least divisive. Although prospective leaders may not be guilty of any wrongdoings, possible negative public perception should be sufficient to bypass those choices. Self-righteousness has no place in Eritrean politics. In democratic societies, truth is only as good as public perception. That is public opinion, which is democracy in action. Aspiring politicians should either campaign beforehand to change pubic perception or submit to public perception. Attempting to change public perception after the fact and, especially, over extended period is simply an imposition and another definition for repression.

2. It is yet with another dismay that I read news few days ago telling us that top EDA officials jointly held a press briefing with Ethiopian news media in Addis Ababa. I have lamented on this issue before, and unfortunately must repeat it again. Aspiring politicians who hold themselves out as representatives of the entire Eritrean opposition camp are always expected to put their grassroots (or let us call it their constituents) upfront and center. These are the groups they should reach out, motivate, lead, and explain various concerns and issues. Having done it with foreign media, why can’t these leaders jointly conduct interview on Asmarino.com, Awate.com, Meskerem.net, etc… We live in an age of teleconferencing and other high technologies that transcend our physical and financial limitations. There is absolutely no excuse. Leadership means to lead and to motivate. Leadership doesn’t begin with shuttling between expensive hotels or backroom deals. Leadership begins with creating rapport with your flock. It is about building confidence. Credit must be given where credit is due, and the kind of leadership and rapport we expect is what Mr. Mesfin Hagos did few days ago. He conducted an interview on radio/internet to explain EDA’s Charter. We may agree or disagree with his answers, but that is only secondary. Our satisfaction must first emanate from knowing that Mr. Mesfin Hagos felt obligated to address us on our concerns. It is only when democratic leaders feel obligated that they must immediately address public concerns and apprehensions that we can have democratic Eritrea. There is no disconnect between today’s political behaviors and behaviors in tomorrow’s Eritrea. What ain’t here today is what won’t be there tomorrow, simple. If some of these leaders don’t begin to exhibit democratic values and principles today, we shouldn’t expect these leaders to metamorphosis into democratic leaders in democratic Eritrea. Leaders who hide are simply managers – not leaders, and should not hold themselves out as such. If Mr. Mesfin Hagos can do it, we would expect that the other leaders would only raise the bar of democratic values and aspirations. It is not suffice to hold a couple of group/public meetings here and there.

3. Yet on another side issue, I am envious of how certain Swedes from within the Swedish media, and few Eritreans, have managed to put the pressure on Eritrean Embassy in Sweden to release Dawit Issak by attempting to deliver every week to the Embassy to a point of frustrating Embassy Staff. For the Swedes, one Swede-Eritrean unjustifiably imprisoned is one-to-many. It is not yet another privileged information or secrets that motivates them. It is one person and the injustice against him that motivates them. That is the kind of dedication that brings about and ensures democracy. Unless we are dedicated enough to put seemingly small but consistent efforts, there will not be democracy in Eritrea. We have left the task of emancipating a whole nation to only few dedicated and active opposition members and media outlets. Instead, the task of removing the regime, and, just as important, creating democratic Eritrea should be borne by all us.

4. ‘Dialogue’ on border?

First, let us examine our recent past. ‘Jebha’ couldn’t resolve it amicably. ‘Shaebia’ couldn’t resolve it amicably. The Eritrean government, with a much higher degree of influence on the Ethiopian regime, esp. between 1991 and 1995, couldn’t resolve it amicably. Why should we believe any near future Eritrean government be able to resolve the border issue amicably, i.e. through ‘Dialogue’? What are the factors, realities, and dynamics that will negate any of our very recent past experience and history? If PIA is the only impediment to resolving the border conflict , as the Ethiopian regime would like us to believe, why didn’t ‘Jebha’ reach an understanding over Badme and other related issue some thirty years ago? Why, because it is a deep rooted problem. It is not as simple as , ‘you take this, and I will take this, thank you and good bye’.

Second, some argue that we must negotiate with Ethiopia to return to Eritrea some of the areas lost to them in the border decision. In reality, every square inch of the disputed area is Eritrean territory if based on colonial borders. Who has the right to say, this area and these people are expendable, and other areas and those people are not expendable? In other words, let us ‘negotiate’ means, as EPM’s position implies (I hope EPM will correct me), EPM must have an idea which areas and people it wants to keep, and which areas it can live without. If I understand correctly what some writers suggest, by telling us that we should not upset the ‘status quo’, i.e. the affected people should continue to live under the governments that they have known for a while and should not be displaced, then this is tantamount to returning to the pre-1998 position. That is giving away every square inch of Eritrean territory, save some token land that Ethiopian government will give to the next Eritrean government to save face.

Third, those opposition groups that stand behind the ‘final and binding’ nature of the border decision have nothing to explain because it a very clear position. But those opposition parties that advocate parting from the ‘final and binding’ nature of the border decision must explain their position. Their position that negotiation will only take place within the ‘delimits’ of the border decision doesn’t mask the fact that these groups’ position on the border is tantamount to returning the border issue back to square one. It is back to pre-1998 political situation and tension between Eritrea and Ethiopia. In my opinion, it is disheartening when EPM takes such a sensitive issue and throws in a confusing position and yet [EPM] doesn’t see it fit to aggressively campaign to make us understand why such a position is necessary. EPM can not just throw a controversial idea and then disappear from the political radar. Maybe there are certain factors which we don’t understand but they do. But as long as EPM doesn’t feel obligated to make us understand their reasoning, we are obligated to campaign against it as we understand it. Trust us, and we know what is good for Eritrea and its people, and yet without feeling obligated to explain it is a condescending attitude. If one is not confident enough to explain it in public, don’t raise it as an issue or publicize it to the public as a platform at all. ‘Kebdkhum ziregetsekum yelen’.

Just as an emphasis let me reiterate that my criticism is not only against EPM’s position on the border. But (also) that an opposition party can not just publicize a platform, or make some controversial statement and expect the public to simply swallow certain positions. It is not my obligation to refrain from making comments, but it is EPM’s obligation to either explain its position or withdraw its platform. Otherwise criticism will continue. That is democracy (Free Speech) at work. Even under difficult situations as we are facing now, and as much as we are trying to give the opposition groups some wiggling room considering various limitations of waging a struggle from Diaspora, we still must stride to show that we hold these opposition groups accountable for their public positions.

The border decision is final and binding, and that the only critical component of Eritrean flexibility should be in creating the right political climate (both internally and vis-à-vis Ethiopia) to finalize the border decision. Lest we are itching to open a Pandora’s Box, the decision should be implemented to its last dot without any changes – final and binding. We, Eritreans, have enough internal political mess without having to add yet another bigger mess.

As a note, if necessary, I will explain in future articles the difference between expecting former senior public officials to abide by certain code of conducts and not divulge privileged information and secrets in haphazard way, and on the other hand, expecting an organization to explain its political platforms and its positions on various issues. Note also that I have chosen the words ‘Dialogue on Border’ knowing exactly the kind of reaction I will get, and I am willing and prepared to explain various positions, scenarios, legal implications & precedence of different types of dialogues. In this article I have only skirted around some of the disturbing issues.

I hope that my fellow Eritreans will engage in constructive discussions that encourage behaviors and actions that raise the bars (standards) for principles, ethics, values, and code of conducts. Otherwise, we will only be jumping from the frying pan and into the fire.

Happy Easter!

Berhan Hagos

April 30, 2005