Decentralization, A Perspective

Recently, political views have been put forward in the form of commentaries and research articles about decentralization as a system of governance. A number of those articles advocated that decentralization can be suitable even in Eritrea in terms of trust building for equality and justice in a harmonious and prosperous state. The term decentralization has many shades of meaning both in description as a concept and in practice because every society adopts a decentralized system to suit its particular situation and needs. All what one can say at this stage is the following: The centralized or decentralized form of governance making use of the historical 8 provinces or else is a matter still to be debated, researched and analyzed in order to facilitate the final choice of our people in adopting a system of governance for implementation under a democratic constitution in post-PFDJ Eritrea.

For now, the debate can go on the basis of how different people look at the concept. Some take the concept of decentralization to mean a phenomenon of distributing power in terms of social, ethnic, religious, and regional divide in their quest for maintaining harmony, equality and justice. Others see decentralization as a way of distributing political and economic power based on geographic boundaries in the context of people living in the same villages, districts, provinces, and municipalities thus managing their own affairs irrespective of their religion and ethnicity.

Looking up in a dictionary, I came across the following brief and simple definitions:

To distribute the administrative functions or powers of (a central authority) among several local authorities
the spread of power away from the center to local branches or governments
the social process in which population and industry moves from urban centers to outlying districts

As seen from the above simple and straight forward dictionary definitions, a political entity can tailor decentralization to suit its own social needs and political beliefs. It is very obvious that the social composition of one country is different from the next one. The geographic boundaries of their ethnic groups are also different. Some ethnic groups are within a geographic location and others are scattered all over their regions without distinct boundaries as districts or provinces. These are significant factors for a constitution of a country to take them into consideration.

The first two dictionary definitions given above pertain to political administrative functions and are mainly the phenomena of constitutional formulations. The third definition is a social phenomenon for the most part. However, it may be necessary to state the obvious that social aspects of a people impact greatly their political aspect. Based on the social moves, new political administrative districts can be established and old ones can be redrawn.

Revisiting the use of administrative divisions during the years of armed struggle give an example of how the concept of decentralized administration is used in different ways and according to one’s given situation.

It is to be recalled the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF) divided the country into twelve administrative units called by their numbers – Administrative Unit 1, 2 etc. To make the illustration easier to grasp for the young generation, let’s start with the smallest unit, a village:

Each village elected a council/committee of five who served as administrators for the affairs of the village. The villagers selected a new committee at the end of the term or elected a replacement should it become necessary. The villagers had the capability of using the culture and tradition in settling issues as needed. They routinely used a team of three elders to mediate tough issues or discrepancies among villagers. Villagers went to their religious leaders for wedding ceremonies, marriage traditions, burials and other religious affairs. Muslims and Christians of the village handled their respective affairs with no problems because their council knew the legal and cultural boundaries not withstanding some imperfections and flaws.
The next hierarchy in the administrative structure was composed of a number of villages in the same vicinity/locality which roughly equated to a district or “woreda”, as it is called locally. The district administrators were elected by an assembly of the five administrators coming from each village. This was purely democratic without any imposition from the organization. The three administrators took care of the affairs of the district in collaboration with the council of each affected village. Again, there were no issues of inequality that was known to me. Mostly people of the same culture and ethnicity live in the same, village and district and so they were administering themselves and managing their affairs consistent with their cultural and legal traditions.
The districts in the same geographical location formed the administrative units or provinces. In the same manner an assembly of village councils elected three members of the district, an assembly of district administrators would elect provincial officials. These officials would manage the affairs of the whole province (administration unit). However, the fact that the country was not liberated and the existence and disagreement of the two fronts did not allow for this election to take place. So the administration of the province remained at the hands of five officers and a chairman. These officers represented the executive committee of the legislative body, the Revolutionary Council. In independent Eritrea, the five officers would be elected from the assembly of district administrators following procedures developed under the constitution.

I have to make it clear to my readers that decentralization as a concept or as heavy weight political term was never used at that time to the best of my knowledge. The above illustrations demonstrate a number of things.

Since the basic Eritrean entity starts at the village level, self administration of the villages by officials elected by the free will of the villagers ensures that they will manage most of their own affairs using their cultural and legal traditions.
In a similar fashion, the district people will be able to manage their affairs within their district boundary under the limitations imposed by the constitution.
The same goes for the province people, and city dwellers.

This practice of self-rule going down to the level of the village was a form of decentralization of administration. And if that much democratic right can be accomplished during the struggle, with all of the formidable hindrances and limitations, much more improved structure and process can be afforded in a liberated democratic Eritrea. This distribution of power and authority, this election of leaders at village, district, and provincial levels is for sure a locally developed decentralization of power and administration. Obviously, this kind of administrative system can enable villages, districts, cities and provinces to be administered by elected leaders who speak the language, know the culture, and understand the tradition of their respective constituents. A democratically elected peoples’ legislative body at the national level is another safeguard to ensure that significant concerns, issues and disparities are addressed properly.

I also saw some benefits of this decentralized administrative system:

First and foremost literacy or modern education is not necessary for a people to embrace and practice of democracy. This counters the very fundamental PFDJ argument that our people are not ready for democracy.
ELF was able to accomplish the historic land reform in areas where land ownership was seen as a livelihood without much difficult because the district and village leaders helped to calm the people.
Since there are a lot of villages, districts, provinces and municipalities that are not demarked religiously or ethnically, this serves the mixed society well.
More than any thing else, there were not any known significant ethnic or religious conflicts or difficulties as a result of this administrative practice.

In a nutshell it worked then despite all the difficulties and short comings of an armed struggle with extremely limited resources and formidable enemy. I also think it can work even better in a democratic environ with relatively better resources. As a result, I come to a conclusion that a federated government of ethnic and religious divisions is not only necessary but counter productive. I believe the issue is lack of human and democratic right as individuals or groups of people caused by a total PFDJ dictatorship rather than religious and ethnic animosity among the Eritrean people. History shows that the people have risen to attempt the divisions and problems of the two armed organizations contrary to experiences of other countries in similar condition. Yes, there is some discontent from some segments of our people, but that is nothing that cannot be cured with a democratic government and addressed with constitutional amendment.

In my humble opinion, I see the problem as follows:

· Some in the opposition have fallen to the trap of divide and rule of PFDJ by declaring a segment, the Tigrinya speaking region, of our people as the oppressor or chauvinist. They have worked years to instill this sentiment in the people. They completely forgot that the dictatorship in Asmara is a one man tyranny that has equally jailed, kidnapped, and killed our people indiscriminately. They have a distorted diagnosis of the problem and as a result reach on a distorted solution.

· I have not heard any people from any village, district or province committing any kind of cruelty on any other people. Any atrocity or criminal act has been by the cronies of the dictatorship on all segments of our people. In fact, most of recent atrocities by the dictatorship have been against Christians in the provinces of Kebesa. I am not sure how these people who have not been able to save them selves are committing oppression against other segments of our people.

· Some seem to have adopted the logic that since Isayas is a Tigrinya speaking Christian from Kebesa, the Tigrinya speaking of Kebesa are oppressors and chauvinists, an analogy which I completely fail to understand.

No democracy is perfect and without weaknesses. For example, one would ask if it was fair for a council of a small village had equal voting power with the council from a much smaller village of the same district etc. Some imperfections would be there at least until the next generation takes care of them while some important issues can be addressed by the constitution to be ratified in the future democratic Eritrea. Some old democracies live with some imperfections and address significant issues with constitutional amendments at the federal and state/provincial levels as needed. For example districts can be redrawn if deemed necessary. Democracy is an ever evolving phenomenon where changes can be made with the economic, social, cultural, and political realties of the time.

Eternal Glory to our Martyrs