Focus On Eritrean Election (Part Fourteen)
By Tesfamicael Yohannes
June 22, 2003

My motto: Exclusion ends in violence. Inclusion ends in justified election.

Today's topic is, discussion with Ato Seyom Tesfay

By the heading, "The Missing ingredient", Seyom Tesfay in his article asks for discussion the following topics. I am interested to participate and would like to give my opinion. The topics are as follows.

1. The method of struggle
I assume the struggle is for democratization in Eritrea. I wish, Ato Seyoum Tesfai, refined it what kind of struggle does he has in mind. To be involved in this discussion, my interest will be in democratization process by inclusion method. If your struggle is meant to remove the existing government, then my discussion is going to be considered as x-ray foundation for democratization discussion. Therefore, to continue with this discussion let us assume that the struggle is for reformation and democratization of the Eritrean politics.

I would like to remind that, it is not only the existing government to be blamed of being authoritarian. Non of the opposition groups as well, can be awarded a prize of being a champion of democracy. All of them are the worst enemy of democracy. Therefore, the democratization process has to be in all aspects.

I totally condemns and totally forbid armed struggle for democratization in Eritrea. The method for democratization in Eritrea should have to be non violence means. The non violence is strategy and not tactic. For the first, the Eritrea people is wearied and tired by armed struggle. Thirty years armed struggle for independence and three years armed confrontation for border delimitation is above the limit a people of one country can endure. For the second, the Eritrean people had very bad memory of the civil war during the armed struggle. That situation should never happen again. Finally, the outcome of armed struggle to topple existing government will bring another militant groups in power. As is usual aftermath grip of power by armed struggle there elapses time for transition to normal position. For sure those who succeeds by armed struggle are going to ask certain years to clean up and organize new process by removing the old process. Here instead of developing or constructing from the existing strata, the new regime will be forced to start from scratch. Generally speaking, there will not be continuity. All the time it will be discrete system and that is not healthy for the stability of a country.

Democratization process by non violence means is preferable than armed struggle, though the process will be lazy and sometimes it could be frustrated by the belligerence of the existing regime. But, the belligerents of the regime could possibly overcomes with the enlightenment and conscious participation of the broad masses. In my opinion, I believe that civic education for the broad masses will be the best method to deal with it. If people are united and aware of their right, then all the power for the democratization is at the hand of a civilized and well armed of conscious people. I think this kind of change is more fruitful and lasting solution than a group of militarily armed struggle. The strategy here is, first of all to preserve the heritage of the heroic and very patient Eritrean people's armed struggle for independence not to be paralleled with an armed struggle for toppling a government. Secondly, the energy and time of the Eritrean people could be spared for reconstruction of the country at the same time struggling for democratization. And, finally, above all to avoid extra blood shed among brothers and sisters.

I would like to conclude by siting the following which I found it in one of the Eritrean web sites. It says, "In the Eritrean future, sacrifice is a constant. But let us make sure that what we are sacrificing is our time, our energy, our goodwill, but never, ever again our people. Eritrea has paid more than its share in human life just for the honor of existing and future generations must be spared because past and present generations have already paid the price." , emphasis mine.

2. The Ratified Constitutions implementation
No doubt about the implementation of the ratified constitution. Here it is not a matter of discussion whether the ratified constitution should be implied or not. You can discuss what type of house to construct. After the house is constructed you simply make use of it. For a while the house could be out of use, but in the final analysis it will be used. Or, as alternative you can discus to abolish it. Therefore, if there is going to be discussion of the ratified constitution, then it is going to be only its demise. For its amendment it, it has to be left for representatives of the Eritrean people to deal with it.

In my opinion, the delay of the implementation of the constitution is not due to the existing government is against the constitution. First of all, it is by itself the existing government who initiated and took all the process to its ratification of the constitution. Secondly, the implementation of the constitution will empower the legitimate of the existing government and we can say that equally the existing government is beneficial with its implementation. Then, you can ask what is the reason for its delay? The obvious reason is the interference of the Woyane regime in the internal affaire of the country. The woyane regime mixed up the issue of border with the issue of toppling the existing government in Eritrea. The removal of the existing government in Eritrea is non of its business to Woyane. The existence or the removal of the existing government is only the wish of the Eritrean people that determines. Here, there is one very important point that somebody who sincerely is interested to know the complexity of the intermingling and disruption of the process of implementing the ratified constitution with the process of the internal split that resulted within the members of the existing government. For that I am going to explain it as follows.

When the border issue was raised between Ethiopia and Eritrea, the stand of the reformist, that we call them G15, is collectively not known. But, individually, the stand of each one could be analyzed. For example, Mr. Adhanom, the then ambassador of Eritrea in Scandinavian countries, he is known for his persuasion we in the Scandinavian countries to contribute one thousand dollar for the war of resistance. Some of the G15, like General Ogube and Mesfin Hagos, they publicly disclosed that they were denied to participate in the war for resistance. I understood this event from the interviewee of General Ogube, when he said that the Woyane regime did made use military experts from the Derge regime why not the Eritrean government used us?. As for Mesfin Hagos, he said in one of his interviews, that he didn't had contact with the chief in command during the war time. Another example is the then representative of Eritrea at the UN, Mr. Haile Menkerios. He seemed he had loose contact with his government. That all explain in the interviewee he gave with VOA amharic version after his assignment as UN representative in one country. Let us not forget the "teTelaQina" of Haile Woldetensaia.

Analyzing this complex situation is not as such easy. However, it is our duty to analyze and make it clear such that the existing and next generation to understand it. Based on this I will try to analyze it taking different perspectives. I understood that there was not unity between the G15 and I call the EL (the existing leadership) about the 1999/2000 war with Woyane. First let me describe the perspective of the G15. The war for them was purely toppling the Isseyas government. As for the border issue and sovereignty of Eritrea, no doubt they believe intactness of Eritrea. No body can blame them that they would undo the independence of Eritrea or alter the shape of Eritrea. Especially, persons like me we don't have the morality to judge them as persons who give the independence and sovereignty of Eritrea to Woyane's will.

The EL's perspectives about the war is different from the G15. They took the threat seriously and didn't want to give a chance for the Woyans hidden agenda to be fulfilled. The hidden agenda of Woyane was to install puppet government in Eritrea that accepts Badme, Irob, Bada and partly of Assab region as Ethiopian sovereignty. To deal with Woyane decisively was as a matter of life and death for them.

Now, we can realize that the two perspectives were of deep and grave differences. These two perspectives, to lead to what they fallen was natural. It was of historical momentum happened in front of our eyes. The Eritrean people was shocked and paralyzed by the unfolded events. The consequence was a tragedy. People who fought, a quarter of their supposed life age theirs for liberty are now leading a miserable life in jail worst than what it would had faced to them if not at all fought for their liberty.

What all this reveals is the reformists who vigorously asked for the implementation of the constitution misrepresented their motive as a plot to remove the president from power. I myself, do not consider as a plot. But, for the President, from the experience he faced during the war time, that can possibly puts him in defense. Can we say that, there was misunderstanding among them? or can we say that there was power struggle? We really do not know. Because, it took us by surprise and it happened too fast. Especially, there was not expectation that the leadership who passed all obstacles to bring independence and stable government with a rapid development all of sudden to fall in this trap. The problem for me who used to follow the guidance of EPLF leadership as the just and right path became a fiasco to apprehend it all of sudden. I can't imagine to condemn all of sudden to one group and adore the other one. For me it would have been easy to listen to what the collective leadership of EPLF would say about ELF and condemn blindly the later one. To do that is very easy for me, because I am intoxicated with the positive side of EPLF and the negative side of ELF. Nevertheless, this time I am different. I am an independent person. I use my instinct and follow my principles. No more to adore one group and condemn the other.

The stand of the existing government and the reformist was in high tempered position. Thanks to the long years comradeship that there was not a spill of blood. For that we the Eritrean people have to praise them. Now, as time goes on I hope every bodies hot temperament to be cooled and begin to think rationally. I expect the Eritrean government to show its mercy and release them free or by bail and bring their case to justice. Therefore, the implementation of the constitution was not realistic in that situation, but from now on there is the possibility to implement it.

As for the opposition groups, first of all they didn't acknowledged that they recognize the Eritrean constitution. If they did recently, I have no idea at all. Therefore, they don't have the morality to ask for its implementation. They accuse the government of not implementing the ratified constitution, but that is just for political scandal purposes. To be continued.

Tesfamicael Yohannes

The above article founds in http://groups.msn.com/tesfamicaelyohannes

The following note is, from the book "ROGUE STATE", by William Blum.

quotation from "Perverting Elections".

"It shall be unlawful for a foreign national directly or through any other person to make any contribution of money or other thing of value, or to promise expressly or impliedly to make any such contribution, in connection with an election to any political office or in connection with any primary election.