|
Organizations
and Dissent
“Perception is as
important as reality!”
[Note: most of the
discussions on organizations and its memberships can be extrapolated to
nations and its citizens. Similar dynamics are at work.]
Real organizations
will periodically encounter internal and external challenges that will
define their true nature and character. Only opaque organizations
pursue restrictive practices that will eventually ensure the very
outcome that they attempt to avoid in the first place. In our campaigns
to evolve towards a democratic nation, effective organizations evolve
into effective institutions, which in turn create strong and viable
democratic nation.
As passionate as
we are about political issues, in reality, what will assure our success
is by building learning organizations that can overcome our human
shortcomings, including the need to escape accountability, the need to
avoid confrontations and the urge to shield members and citizens from
controversies.
Like all things in
nature, organizations undergo through various phases – inception,
growth, maturity and decline. In general, young organizations reflect
the views of the current times, whereas older organizations reflect the
views of the bygone days. Whereas flesh must die leaving behind its
off-springs to continue with life, organizations can reinvigorate
themselves, i.e. older organizations acting young, by avoiding from
falling into old ideological and “old-ways” traps. Old habits indeed
die hard! If organizations can avoid the traps of natural progressions
(i.e. anti-age formula), they can remain within the growth-to-maturity
phase for many years, even for generations.
Organization, as
the name suggests, is simply a mechanism or a tool to organize, i.e. to
pull together and manage, people and resources for common purpose.
Organization is a double-edged sword; use it properly and members can
realize many achievements as a group that they can’t do as individuals.
If used improperly, it can grow into an instrument of repression or
destructive machinery.
An expanding
organization attracts many individuals with different beliefs, views and
inclinations. As nature is dynamic, situations and events change that
require organizations to continually adjust to these changing natural
realities. Unfortunately, keeping members on the same wavelength in
ever-changing realities is never easy. What methods leaders of these
organizations choose to pursue to keep membership aligned within
changing realities will determine the fate of the organization.
Managing change
becomes the single biggest challenging activity that requires the utmost
skill and tact to navigate through the changing realities of
organizational life.
Every viable
organization is always torn at the seams among those who want quick
change, those who don’t want to change at all and those who want varying
degrees of gradual change. Organizational equilibrium,
where every member is on the same wavelength, probably occurs at one
point in time only – probably when an organization is formed. After
that, organizational equilibrium is a moving target. Inability to effect
managed change leads ineffective and ineffectual organizational leaders
to pursue imprudent policies that will eventually sink any
organization.
Challenges and
missteps are facts of life. It is my fundamental belief that obstacles
create the greatest opportunity to learn from them and, if handled
properly, they can propel an organization, and beyond that a nation,
into greater heights.
For instance, examining past human behavior and history, who knows in
some twisted way, PIA’s repression may have weakened Eritrea today, but
on the other hand, it may have quickly matured the nation to embark on a
prudent path. It is a fallacy to ever think that organizations or
nations facing challenges are weak or to believe that all members are at
the same wavelength at all times unless it is a cult organization. In
reality, all organizations must accept challenges as facts of life and
design mechanisms that resolve challenges in a prudent manner that will
instill confidence in the organization’s competency, capability and
fairness. If organizations fail to formulate prudent strategies to
‘manage organizational challenges and policy change’ in ever-changing
realities and world, it will surely decline through natural progressions
– first, it may face difficulty attracting new members, and second, it
will lose members at every corner - and there will be many corners in a
very dynamic world.
All dynamic
organizations facing internal challenges must address three issues. One
may refer to these issues as the flesh (body), mind and soul of an
organization. Effective organizations don’t try to balance between the
three; rather they develop and excel in each one. One can’t say I will
develop my mind more at the expense of my body. Each one must be
developed and handled independently, yet reinforcing each other. These
are,
}
Issue 1 -- Rule-of-law (body): relates to adhering to organizational
laws, rules and regulations regardless of circumstances. Failure in
adhering to rule-of-law leads to chaos, mistrust and ill-will.
Adherence to rule-of-law is an absolute must. Basic laws don’t change
much.
}
Issue 2 – Policies (mind): whereas organizational missions and
objectives may remain static for long-period of time, policies relate to
organizations’ views towards certain issues and methods
in carrying out its objectives. Views may change with changing
situations, or views may not change but methods may change to achieve
the same objectives due to changing situations. Who is responsible or
authorized to formulate policies is never a straightforward issue.
Organizational constitutions, charters and bylaws must clearly delineate
responsibilities and authorities in order to avoid future disputes.
}
Issue 3 – Rapport (soul): With changing realities, good rapport among
organizational members is needed to ensure that views and interests
remain aligned. In democratic societies, communication is the single
most important instrument that assures alignment of public interests, as
opposed to dictatorship which attempts to align interests through
force. An organization can only become truly successful by invigorating
its grassroots. Leadership at the top can only have finite energy to
undertake organizational missions. The ultimate objectives of an
organization can only be achieved by igniting and nurturing its soul.
Moreover, rapport is critical in steering an organization through
change. Democratic and free organizations can’t expect every member to
simply accept every order transmitted from top to bottom. This doesn’t
mean that leadership must explain its every act to grassroots, but it
should maintain strong rapport and exert reasonable efforts that will
keep grassroots satisfied and feels included in decision-making and
other organizational activities. Ask members periodic questions or
conduct surveys and encourage even anonymous suggestions: “Are you
happy to be a member, why and why not”, “If you were a leader, what
would you change?” etc… Rapport also means striving to maintain
positive perception towards the organization and leadership.
These are the
three issues that must be addressed every time any organization,
supra-organization or institution faces any form of challenges.
Although the nature of any internal inquiry might be determined by the
scope of the inquiry, if the purpose is to re-examine the overall
performance of an organization, these three issues need be addressed.
The manner with
which we handle dissent will define our evolution towards democracy.
It is fallacious to believe that we can zigzag towards stable
democracy. Instead, it is more productive to believe that we need to
build our democracy brick-by-brick beginning from the foundations of
today.
In addition, it is
worth remembering that there are two types of dissents. One
type of dissent is the minority few who are vocal and active.
The second type of dissent is where non-vocal members and the
general public subconsciously become more apathetic in opposition
movement. The least concern is probably for the few and active
dissenters because these are people who are driven and who will find
another outlet for continuing with their ultimate objective. The
majority members who become disenchanted and disengage from political
activities are the biggest loss to the opposition movement and for the
democratic cause.
We must believe that for every 5 or 10 who vocally dissent, it may mean
a loss of 100 or 200 people who just quietly withdraw from the political
scene.
We must remain
sympathetic towards legitimate dissent. Dissenters are always in a
dilemma. They are forced to weigh between their concerns of the effect
their dissent would have on the organization and the movement in general
on one hand versus the short- and long-term implications
of allowing objectionable acts to continue to occur without restraint.
It is for this reason that we have to strive to delineate the line which
dissenters are morally, if not legally, obligated to express their
dissent. As democrats we should practice this mentally. With
experience and time, dissenters would know their obligations of when and
how they can dissent for greater overall benefit without ever feeling
that one is ‘destructive’ or ‘troublemaker’.
2001 Dissent
The 2001 dissent
evolved around two issues:
-
Rule-of-law:
PIA and PFDJ (Head Office) failed to,
-
Hold
Central Committee meetings every six months
-
Hold
regular monthly ministerial meetings,
-
Implement
many Central Committee resolutions
-
Policies:
Central Committee and/or National Assembly took the following
positions as manifested through resolutions and public declarations,
-
PFDJ must
re-examine its performance since independence,
-
Required
Head of State to consult military experts (through Joint Chief
of Staff, etc…) before and during conflicts.
-
Etc…
Instead, PIA and
PFDJ (HO) pursued smear campaign against the dissenters, firing them
from their positions and excluding them from organizational meetings.
Dissent within EDP
The temptation is
always to sweep challenges and controversies under the rug quickly in
the hope of ‘minimizing’ damage. But are challenges ever swept under
the rug, or just left for another day when it can cause even greater
damage? Moreover, EDP must be careful to not be perceived as a
victim of “Kab Kifu’e Zigeberukha, Kifu’e Zemharukha/Zelmedukha!” EDP
should not be perceived as repeating what PFDJ did to it. Perception is
as important as reality.
No organization
would ever want to become a subject of discussion unless in positive
manner. The general perception is that any negative discussion would
weaken members’ confidence in the organization, while emboldening the
organization’s rivals, antagonists, oppositions and detractors.
At the risk of
prejudicing EDP’s reasons for pursuing its course of action towards the
dissenters, for discussion sake, there are few reasons why leaders of an
organization may choose to pursue imprudent course-of-actions in dealing
with dissent and challenges,
1.
“The
Time isn’t Right” argument – the general concern is that dissent would
cause doubt and uncertainties within an organization (same issue with
nation) leading to fragmentation, thus weakening the organization at the
very moment leadership believes is crucial time for pursuing its overall
organizational objectives. The problem is that the most difficult
challenges appear at the “wrong time”, and if not dealt in a timely and
prudent manner, they become the very cause for further weakness,
extending the period of difficulties. The 2001 dissent came to the
forefront soon after the end of the third round of conflict. PFDJ’s
propaganda was to say that no dissention should occur until the border
is finalized. The G-15 thought otherwise, and many of us have supported
them because difficult issues are addressed and resolved in times of
difficulty and tackled in timely manner – not postponed until when our
GDP is $5,000 US per capital. Postponing from dealing with challenges
is just another way of asking to forget about it, because if past
challenges are brought up years later, one will be criticized for
digging up old bones.
2.
“Incorrect generalization about the public” – Politicians fall into the
same trap sooner or later. They eventually come to believe that the
general public is gullible and that their fellow politicians are a bunch
of power hungry snakes. With this mentality, suddenly a politician’s
role changes from being a just another public servant to crusader for
public good. Suddenly, politics becomes about smart maneuverings
rather than pursuing long-term strategies that attempts to build
credibility and integrity. Moreover, when too many “smart” politicians
are too busy mingling with each other, the glass prism from which they
examine the rest of the population and politics changes. Instead,
political leaders of organizations must first and foremost strive to
maintain the credibility and integrity of their organizations.
Political leaders have limited capacity to reach out and energize the
general public. Instead they must use the wave theory – the power of
propagation. This means, political leaders inspire the people around
them, who in turn inspire other people, who in turn inspire others, etc…
moving towards the outer rings. The prudent observer would search for
the point at which the (self) propagation stops, stifling the growth of
an organization or an entire movement.
3.
“Weakens membership” argument - possibly the single biggest concern for
organizations (as well as nations) is that internal challenges weaken
memberships. I believe that it isn’t challenges, dissents or
disagreements themselves that weaken organizations but the manner in
which these challenges are handled. What weakens membership is
controversies left lingering. The immediate natural reaction of any
leadership is always to bury controversies. This is not unlike major
business organizations and famous individuals who are accused of
inappropriate acts. Although the accusations might be false, these
businesses and individuals would rather settle out-of-court quickly
rather than tarnish their images in public’s perceptions. On the other
hand, if such accusations are going to open floodgates of further legal
actions against these businesses or individuals, then they are forced to
defend their cases. Similarly, political organizations should operate
under the assumption that challenges are recurring and then defend their
credibility and integrity at every point, rather than assume that
challenge is infrequent or one isolated case and choose to quickly sweep
it under the rug. When organizations pursue policies that tackle
challenges in transparent manner, controversies become a source of
learning and hence strengthening membership rather than weakening it.
4.
“Emboldens Detractors” argument: has been rejected as a valid argument
to hush up dissent. This is similar to PFDJ argument that internal
dissent emboldens Woyane. We rejected it them, and we can’t accept that
argument today. In fact, today’s struggle is primarily a political
campaign, which requires us to engage in acts that instills confidence
in our adherence to commonly shared beliefs and values.
5.
“Nice in theory, but not practical” argument: I don’t believe that
anyone would argue that maintaining organizational integrity and
credibility which feeds into public perception is important in theory
but impractical in reality. It is suffice to say that overcoming
organizational challenges is the single most important task that we must
master if Eritrea is to embark on a stable road towards democracy and to
create a prosperous and dynamic Eritrea. Issues change, but it will be
effective organizations that can meet those challenges without resorting
to counter-productive methods.
The dissenters
raised a number of policies which EDP has shifted from its inception to
current period. The dissenters may have presented their lamentation on
some of EDP’s core policies in a manner that may give incorrect
perception that EDP capitulated to other opposition political
organizations. EDP has had as much influence on other opposition
parties as it was influenced, and that is probably the price of
compromise. The fact that EDP has shown flexibility, as have the other
political parties, is by itself encouraging signs for the future. It is
a totally different issue if the dissenters are disputing that EDP
leadership breached resolutions. But if the issue is that EDP is
capitulating when in fact it is finding a middle ground to work with
others, which can only be positive.
EDP’s influence on
EDA and beyond has been commendable,
-
“Peaceful
Resistance” – all the major and prudent political organizations have
openly stated they support this method as a primary avenue to wage
the current struggle. That is a big leap forward from three years
ago and earlier. The rest of the statement contained within EDA
pertaining to this issue is simply political.
-
“Dialogue” –
all the major and prudent political organizations have accepted
dialogue with the regime as an option to resolve the current
crisis.
.
The dissent also
evolves on the issues of,
-
“Travel to
Ethiopia” – this is the one issue that is creating the rumble within
the dissenters,
-
If this is
a question of breaching EDP’s resolutions, then this is a matter
of rule-of-law,
-
If this is
a question of dissenters’ beliefs that the border must be
demarcated before traveling to Ethiopia, their position has a
long-term implication which may not jive with the experiences of
many other countries which have the same border disputes.
-
However,
if this is simply a policy issue, then we should ask why one
supported refraining from traveling to Ethiopia in the first
place. In my case, the primary reason for advocating to ‘not
travel to Ethiopia’ was that we should not give any reason to
the regime to put a wedge between the public and the
opposition. In order to expose the regime’s atrocities, the
opposition camp must be able to deflect any possible smear
campaign against it. It was a tactical reason. From 2004 to
today, Eritrean political situation has taken a dramatic turn
for the worse, which allows the opposition camp to utilize wider
options. The unequivocal view remains that violence shouldn’t
be used to resolve issues, and as long as discussions are
conducted to synchronize views with Ethiopia for peaceful
purposes, it should be encouraged. Ultimately, EDP stands for
an inclusive dialogue which can be extended to even external
forces under the same principles. The fact that there are no
public reactions to EDP’s recent presence in Ethiopia by itself
is a manifestation of the seismic shift in Eritrean public’s
view towards this issue. Naturally, this is not an endorsement
of Ethiopia’s direct involvement in Eritrea, nor softening our
apprehensions towards Ethiopia’s hidden agenda towards Eritrea.
This is a case of being stuck between a rock-and-hard place.
-
“Constitution”
Again we are
getting too specific on issues at a time when our main concern should be
in building effective organizations and in determining how we can become
catalysts for change that can only take place within Eritrea.
We would be
deceiving ourselves if we ever believe that change agents within Eritrea
would roll out red carpets and receive Diaspora politicians to govern
Eritrea. In reality, and most likely, the change agents in Eritrea will
invite Diaspora opposition to join them in some form of unity
government. As a betting man, the internal change agents will retain
the majority, and the Diaspora opposition’s functions will be to “add
value” to the transitional government. No small contribution is too
small for a nation in distress.
To reiterate, it
won’t be EDA alone that will decide the fate of the 1997 Constitution.
Many of us believe that the Constitution needs amendments which can be
undertaken over a period of time. It is difficult to imagine that a
political coalition that took two years (or ten years) to amend two
sections in a skimpy charter can introduce a new Constitution with
significantly more sections before the end of this young century.
Our contribution
in the current situation is to engage in discussions over the
constitutional issues for better understanding and refining our views
rather than for the 1997 Constitution to become a source of schism.
Going forward,
it is critical that EDP is seen as entertaining dissent in legal and
fair manner – if nothing else, for the sake of maintaining positive
perception. Even if leadership may have exercised proper procedures in
dealing with dissent, it shouldn’t operate under the political
philosophy of just bunkering down and allowing storms to pass by.
Judicial inquiries
and parliamentary inquiries are mainly created not to redress past
issues but to allow political storms to blow by allowing all sides to
cool off. These inquiries usually don’t lay blames to one side only
unless the violations are absolutely flagrant, but instead point out
certain shortcomings apportioning blame to all sides and thus giving
everyone a face-saving out of controversies. This is strength, never a
weakness! Politics isn’t just about who is right and who is wrong [not
to be confused with rule-of-law which clear cut], but to arrive at
face-saving conclusions and recommendations in order to maintain working
relationships among disputing parties. To reiterate, the ultimate
purpose of these inquiries is to avoid such controversies from occurring
again, and is NOT primarily designed to pass judgments for past actions.
EDP can do the
opposition camp a greater service by dealing directly with dissent in a
manner that instills confidence. At the very least, it should issue
public statements. It would be even better if leadership concedes and
proceeds with an internal inquiry to address the controversies. These
types of actions can only strengthen EDP, while setting the bar higher
for other Eritrean political organizations. When other political
organizations face dissent, they will be forced to act like EDP. This
would be EDP’s greatest contributions to the opposition camp, to the
younger generation and the future institutionalization of Eritrea.
The dissenters may
still dispute the outcome of the inquiry and leave the organization.
But that isn’t as critical as ensuring the process itself was fair and
prudent. EDP will only be judged by its professionalism.
Pertaining to
whether EDP should issue public statement, the question is whether EDP,
or any other political organization, is responsible and accountable to
its own members only or, beyond that, to the general public. The
answer, muted or otherwise, determines what each political organization
believes to be its role within the public struggle.
In one of this
writer’s articles, it was argued that the merging of ‘similar’
organizations would usurp power from grassroots to leadership. The
question one should ask to oneself is, how would EDP have reacted to
dissent if it felt that it could lose members directly to another rival
political organization with similar political platforms? If dissenters
were to become inactive after their dissent, i.e. leaving the
organizations only, political organizations would probably not be too
concerned. But jumping ship to another rival organization is very
uncomfortable at the very least. This is why I argued against “merging”
similar political organizations as it will have adverse consequences on
grassroots movement. That would be creating monopoly power, and power
will be usurped from grassroots to leadership with detrimental
effects.
One last comment I
want to make pertains to party politics. For any casual observer of
party politics in the West, backstabbing, exclusionary tactics within
party politics and groupings/alliances within parties are very common.
Assuming there are no breaches of party constitution or rules, a
leadership (executive) committee composed of, for instance, 7 members
may exclude two committee members and thus the five members may deal
with each other to take common position on certain policies. Of
course, the five committee members can’t exclude the other two in the
voting process. We have to accept exclusions and backroom dealings as
part of the practical democratic system. Sadly enough, no decision
would ever be made if such backroom maneuvering didn’t take place. We
are not trying to create a holy organization but to create an effective
organization able to achieve its objectives; to achieve the very purpose
the organization is created for through adherence to rule-of-law and
effective mechanisms to address various issues.
In conclusion, EDP
may feel that such public discussions will weaken its political party.
In fact, such open discussions may pre-empt possible worse criticisms.
But before taking a defensive position, it should revaluate the
ideological and practical reasons for taking an act (or acts) that may
bring its organization’s credibility into question or that may reinforce
other people’s suspicions of EDP’s and other political parties’
tolerance towards dissent. Such challenges should be viewed as a golden
opportunity to make public statements and to reinforce one’s principles
that will define the organization and which can propel it to greater
heights. Personally, I guess that EDP is composed of many professionals
and thus can become a model organization by engaging in professional and
effective campaign to tackle such issues. It should be clear to my
readers that nobody is asking EDP leadership to divulge confidential
information. As long as controversy doesn’t breach the organization’s
rules and resolutions, leadership can explain to its constituents that
they can’t divulge certain confidential information.
To embark on the
road towards Eritrean democracy, it won’t be prudent policies, political
platform or political intrigues alone that will assure our success. It
is far more critical that organizations behave in a manner that enhances
their credibility and integrity. It is about perception, perception and
perception! Without effective and transparent organizations, we will
surely make the same mistakes of the past and condemning ourselves to
the same fate as other third world countries. As political activists,
our primary function is to hold political parties to organizational
integrity and credibility, while propagating our own individual or group
views on different issues as a secondary function.
I don’t believe
that many of us are engaged in Eritrean politics because we have nothing
better to do, but is to bring about fundamental change in our political
culture – and that change can only begin today. As for effecting regime
change within Eritrea, it can only come about through internal
struggle. Our role in Diaspora is to be change catalysts by instilling
confidence in Eritrean living within and outside Eritrea in the manner
we handle our activities, and to provide professional assistance to
Eritrea to evolve towards democracy by establishing effective
institutions in post-PFDJ. All the rest is idle chatter unless
discussions and debates are designed to exchange and develop our views.
I have always argued that the opposition camp’s role is to develop
effective and professional organizations that will eventually play their
small but critical roles in post-PFDJ Eritrea. As for tackling national
issues, some couple of hundred active Diaspora opposition leaders
can’t dictate the people of Eritrea. Let us keep our focus!
Berhan Hagos
May 17, 2007
|
