TO THE POINT

Vision, Values and Courage, Necessary Ingredients in Political Leadership

Actions Taken by the Chairman of ELF-RC

Facts and Fiction

The Nharnet Team

A Short Note to ELF-RC Members and Supporters

The Nharnet Team

ELF-RC Leadership

The Nharnet Team:

The First Anniversary of Nharnet.com

The Nharnet Team

Changing Times - Changing Roles 

The Nharnet Team: 01-05-03

Isayas’s PFDJ resorts to its “Wahyo” days' strategy on 

The Nharnet Team

“Zekeruna Ab Guday Hager”

A Response To A Question From Our Youth in Asmara

The Nharnet Team

What Is the Positive Side of PFDJ?  Isn’t your main motive revenge against the EPLF?  

The Nharnet Team

kòq-ÃöIÊq o.H.„í.[.l.

 ]DM}p§ …mk …ªï] …kl'D÷?

The Nharnet Team

=============

The Nharnet Team

Why ELF-RC Office in Addis?  

 Change Comes

Only Through Hard Work,

 And now it’s Time to Move On!

By

Nharnet Team

(You may have an idea of what democracy means, but are you sure what an alliance means? What democratic procedures apply in groupings, alliances? And do you fully appreciate the nowadays topical word “bloc” in the writings appearing in our websites?  What did Ammar mean when he said ELF-RC is engaged with others in building a strong/winning force for our alliance? This article intends to give to our readers a clearer definition of a number of concepts that are hardly well understood in everyday life.)

Since the third week of February 2007 when the EDA leadership faced some problems in the aftermath of a relatively successful congress, we have been reading a number of articles with varying opinions.  Nharnet Team has been quiet: it wanted everybody to learn the facts from participants of EDA congress and central leadership meetings as well as from commentators who are close to all parties in the Ethiopia-Sudan region.  Nharnet Team now wishes to thank such one  commentator from that region,  Mr. Abdurazig Karrar, a journalist and member of the Khartoum-based Eritrean Center for Media Services for putting forward very realistic and objective assessment of what really happened in the EDA. (Press here for the presentation)

Many articles - some in pen names - have been written to justify the actions taken by each side in the now divided EDA.  Some of them provided sincere assessment of what happened and some were not so objective.  Journalist Abduraziq’s in was very helpful  to see the reality of the split in two of the EDA.

In this article, Nharnet Team wishes to do the following:

1. Clarify some misconception of democratic procedures and how it applies to alliances such as the EDA.

2. Respond to some misguided reading of what was stated by our chairman in his interview with The Reporter

3. It calls upon the two blocs to create a means of working together to the extent possible and get to work on the business of bringing change rather than licking the wound by perpetually dwelling on what has already happened.

Let us start with the discussion of some terms to avoid confusion:

1. Democracy:  The encyclopedia at dictionary.com has many definitions and vast developmental history but we choose the one which is concise and most relevant to our discussion here.

democracy [Gr.,=rule of the people], term originating in ancient Greece to designate a government where the people share in directing the activities of the state, as distinct from governments controlled by a single class, select group, or autocrat. The definition of democracy has been expanded, however, to describe a philosophy that insists on the right and the capacity of a people, acting either directly or through representatives, to control their institutions for their own purposes. Such a philosophy places a high value on the equality of individuals and would free people as far as possible from restraints not self-imposed (emphasis ours). It insists that necessary restraints be imposed only by the consent of the majority and that they conform to the principle of equality. (Emphasis ours).  Doctrines of natural law evolved into the idea of natural rights, i.e., that all people have certain rights, such as self-preservation, that cannot be taken from them…The idea that equality of opportunity can be maintained through political democracy alone has long been challenged by socialists and others, who insist that economic democracy through economic equality and public ownership of the major means of production is the only foundation upon which a true political democracy can be erected.

Crystal Reference Encyclopedia - Cite This Source

From Greek demos (‘people’) and kratia (‘authority’), hence ‘rule by the people’; contrasted with rule by the few (oligarchy) or by one (monarchy or tyranny); also known as a liberal democracy. Since the Greeks first introduced demokratia in many city states in the 5th-c BC, there has been disagreement about what constitutes the essential elements of democracy. One debate concerns who should compose ‘the people’, and only in the 20th-c did this notion come to be viewed as covering the total adult citizenship. Another relates to how the people should rule, particularly in relation to the increasing size of states, which has resulted in a shift from direct democracy to systems of representation. Today it is widely accepted that because the people are too numerous and scattered to come together in assemblies, decision-making has to be handed over to a small group of representatives. Elections, including the right to choose among different groups of representatives offering different doctrines and party programmes, have therefore become seen as essential to democracy. Further necessary conditions are the legal equality of citizens, and the free flow of information to ensure that citizens are in an equal and informed position to choose and hold accountable their rulers. Some radicals argue that economic equality is also necessary, but moves towards economic democracy have been limited.

Our readers can see for themselves that equality in the definition gives equal voice to the people as individual beings.  Some have tried to confuse the issue by applying this equality to equality of organizations in the Eritrean opposition.  As noted above also, that equality can be maintained by representatives since it is not always possible to assemble the people.  That equality of individuals is maintained by applying proportional representation.  In other words more individuals/citizens the more representatives they can have or more weight in the vote they cast. 

One then asks or wonders if all the organizations in EDA are equal.  If not why do they have equal representation and equal vote?  We have to make it clear that it violates the core value of democracy by giving equal vote to all of the organizations.  For example, an organization with one thousand members is given equal vote as an organization with only 50 members. The individual equal right of the 1000 members of the bigger organization is violated simply by not adopting proportional representation. The inherent unfairness of this process was seen when the three ENSF organizations were asked to have only two while they could have a vote of 6 should they stayed as separate entities.   We know that the EDA congress was in the first place convened to revise the Charter, establish proportional representation and then elect a capable leadership that can revitalize the alliance. However, we also know that a compromise was reached at the second EDA congress to give equal say to each organization, small and large, until fair and equitable representation is studied and agreed upon in the next EDA meeting.

We want to remind our readers that there is no equality of organizations or parties but equality of individual rights in democracy.  Many of you who live in democratic nations should know that there are parties who have never ruled or had a majority in the House of Representatives simply because they do not have majority constituents.  The only equality they are afforded is the equal right to organize to get as many followers or constituents so that they can have more votes.   As a result, when EDA decided to give equal votes for all the organizations big or small, the logic and understanding was to decide things through near consensus and not to claim use of simple majority of 50%+1.  

2.    Alliance:  one encyclopedia  and a couple of dictionaries at dictionary.com define it as follows:

·          An alliance is an agreement between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests. 

·         A close association of nations or other groups, formed to advance common interests or causes

·         A formal agreement establishing an association or alliance between nations or other groups to achieve a particular aim 

Again, we call on our readers to check dictionary.com and see for themselves.  As the definition indicates, an alliance is based on an agreement reached by the members of the alliance.  In the case of EDA, it is the charter they adopted before the representatives met which is used to resolve issue as a legal guide if a consensus cannot be reached.  In that charter, it is clearly stated that important decisions are made on a 3/4^th or 75% of vote.  The two important decisions that are usually made in such leadership meetings are adopting new policies and electing the executive leadership. 

3. Bloc:  Once again, we refer to dictionary.com to find out what the basic definition of a bloc is as we have come to understand that some in the opposition camp tend to give it a wrong meaning.

•  A group of nations, parties, or persons united for common action: the Communist bloc

The reason why many writers refer to the two sides of the EDA as blocs is because each organization of each side has agreed on the stand the side has taken and thus takes the definition of a bloc.  It does not mean that they have become one organization or united in one form or another but rather have agreed to work together because they have the same or close stand on many agenda items that the EDA was debating and they have common programmatic goals which reflects the interest of the Eritrean people.

Now that we have seen the common definitions of the terms which could be probably misunderstood or misapplied; we can get back to the subject matter at hand. 

Misconception of democratic procedures and how it applies to Alliances such as the EDA:    As it can be seen from the definition, the membership in the alliance is voluntary and is based on the internal agreement such as the charter of the EDA.  It is then imperative that major decisions are based on consensus or a decisive majority such as the ¾ of vote.  It was wise that the EDA had adopted a ¾ vote requirement on major decisions.  The two main decisions in such alliance congress are adopting the charter which guides its policies and the election of a leadership.  The argument by some that a simple majority democratic principle should have applied simply does not have merit or relevance.  Even within the same organization or party, there are some important decisions that are subject to a 2/3 or ¾ majority rule within the internal constitution of that entity.  In fact the definition of democracy evolves around the right of individuals through their proportional representation.  EDA chose a consensus rather than adhere to the principle of a simple majority rules when it adopted equal representation of all member organizations regardless of their membership size and influence.  Members of the bigger organizations will argue that their democratic right as prescribed in the definition was violated if it was not for the fact that the alliance is based on consensus and or a close majority that keeps them together.

Response to a misguided reading of what was stated by our chairman in his interview with The Reporter:   The following paragraph was stated in the statement of ELF Washington DC conference lead by Yohannes Zeremariam, PHD.   Aspiring to become the dominant force of the Eritrean opposition (as a leader of one of the organizations stated in an interview with an Ethiopian magazine – The Reporter -citing as examples the role of TPLF within the EPRDF or that of FATAH within the PLO) is neither a reflection of the historical development of the Eritrean opposition organizations nor a real help towards cooperation of all forces and our experience of democracy. In fact, mutual respect and acceptance of each and all on an equal footing is the key to establishing the common platform that brings out the spirit of cooperation of all the opposition organizations and groups.

To begin with, there is no mystery that we have posted the whole interview by Woldeyesus Ammar, Chairman of ELF-RC, openly for every one to see (although the tape-recorded interview of the chairman with the editor-in-chief of The Reporter was ill-edited and  missed words, phrases that could have been inaudible in the tape). 

As to the aspiration to be a dominant force in the Eritrean opposition, one should not take it as a surprise and mystery.   Every organization strives to grow and have acceptance by majority of our people unless the organization is based on a very narrow vision and does not believe that it can attain acceptance by the majority of the people.  As long as our organization has and practices democratic principles and strives for a nationalist democratic vision representing a diverse segment of the people, there is nothing wrong with its aspiring to be a significant force. Anyway, we believe it already is significant. ELF-RC has been on record calling on ELF and other related forces to come together and form a very important force that can lead the alliance and then the transition from dictatorship to democracy. It is also important to add here that the ELF-RC has always sought consensus and lived with equal representation and vote with organizations which are really much smaller than it, and some none existent save in name and address.   The full text that Ammar said is below for the reader to see for himself/herself:

Is there anything encouraging?

Yes, because the forces with similar programs are starting to come closer.
In Ethiopia for example you had an alliance and the alliance needed a strong force to guide it. In Palestine all throughout their struggle they had a force within the PLO [which is] Fattah. We did not have Fatah or TPLF in our alliance but now we are creating it.

The above clearly refers to the nationalist democratic bloc being created by ENSF, EDP and ELF-RC.  He never suggested there should not be mutual respect or cooperation.  Every organization is working on equal footing as everyone of them is supposed to be dependent financially and politically on its members.  There is no state funding or mass media that is purveyed to one and not to the other.  The logic that all organizations are equal regardless of size, following, and influence is a big fallacy and we wish brother Yohannes did not fall for it.   When the three organizations that today make ENSF united and ELF representatives refused to grant them more votes than allocated to one organization, was it fair? Does it meet his criteria of equal footing?  Proportional representation is the only fair means of assuring equal footing not the other way round.  If EDP, ENSF, and ELF-RC form a united bloc or proceed to merge, wouldn’t they form a major force which will be able to spearhead the opposition?  The Eritrean people rather have a major force which will spearhead the opposition to success rather than waste more years to maintain the equality of fragmented small organizations. A force that our people can see as a viable alternative to the dictatorship must be created without much delay. ELF-RC works for that.

A call to get the two blocs to create a means of working together:  We would like to express our deep appreciation for the patience, resilience and resourcefulness of our leadership representatives:  Ammar, Menghisteab, Degiga and Artaa as well as Mohammed Ali Ibrahim (who was beside them availing his wisdom and advice) during the EDA congress and the time right after.  We also express our admiration to the representatives of the ENSF, EDP, and other senior cadres of ELF-RC who worked tirelessly by coming up with sound proposals for solution even though every wise solution they tirelessly proposed was rejected unwisely.

Even now they have put a proposal on the table which calls for some kind of working relationship where the two blocs can touch base with each other and work by coordinating aspects that can be executed together. That is a practical way of not engaging in negative tit for tat and shows the people that we can work together on national matters. 

Conclusion:  Playing the unpleasant music of the split again and again to justify our respective stands will not undo what happened.  Dwelling on it will not solve the current or future problems.  Accepting the reality on the ground and how to forge ahead with what it is at hand is a better solution.  Our organization is moving ahead with all the activities that matter and each one organization should demonstrate their contribution by action.  Action is the only way of achieving a democratic change.  We call on all non organized individuals in the opposition to restrain from acting as if this is the end of the world, as sad as it is. They rather stick to the organization or bloc their choice and contribute what they can.  Just complaining and blaming our leaders who are doing the best they can does not add any value to the struggle other than demoralizing the people’s morale.  They ought to be objective and courageous in their assessment rather than blame everybody equally as it is an opportunistic approach which does not help to resolve any issue.  All those who were busy criticizing the EDA for not being effective and not accomplishing much should not tell our leaders that they should have accepted the same leader responsible for the inaction.  EDA was a means of achieving the goal of removing Isayas and the two blocs can do the same if they work hard avoiding attack on each other.  Change can come by hard work and directing all the energy towards Isayas’s PFDJ and it is time to move on. 

Thanks for reading

Nharnet Team

Contact us at::  webmaster@nharnet.com