The Eritrean Mereb advocates for constitutional liberalism, the respect of the rule of law, the protection of property rights, peace and free trade in Eritrea. This blog adheres to Abraham MIT's views and vision.
Mogos Tekeste (This is the pen-name of Abraham G. Ghiorgis)
On December 23, 2009, the Security Council imposed sanctions on Eritrea for “over its role in Somalia, [and] refusal to withdraw troops following conflict with Djibouti.” See S/C9833. The PFDJ is blaming the USA for this sanction. It is in the works that the PFDJ may conduct a massive demonstration against the USA. Here, I am not debating the merit of the sanction. For arguments sake, let us assume that the USA is not a saint on this issue. For a change, I will act as if I were a good friend of the PFDJ. In that capacity, I will help the PFDJ not to bark at the wrong tree and somehow guide it to where its protests, angers and arrows should be directed.
The Security Council rarely imposes sanctions. The supporters of the PFDJ need to come back to earth and see things as they are; they have to come to grips with the fact that Eritrea under the PFDJ is completely isolated in the international arena. If nothing else that is the crucial message of the sanction.
The five veto wielding members of the Security Council are the USA, the UK, France, Russia and China. As far as sanction against Eritrea is concerned, in practical terms, the alignment of forces in the Security Council is unanimous. This needs to be digested. One has to forget the no vote of Libya since it amounts to nothing. Just concentrate on the five veto wielding nations. Even when it comes to the veto wielding nations, for this analysis one needs to ignore the USA, UK and France; I will even go further and assume that these three nations are hell bent to “harm” Eritrea. That is the assumption of the PFDJ anyhow. Then let us concentrate on the two nations that historically had been in the opposite camp of the USA – Russia and China.
No matter from which angle one examines and scrutinizes the matter, China's vote in real terms amounts to a support for sanction against Eritrea. No one should be fooled by China’s vote of abstention. Measured by its impact, an abstention by a veto wielding power in such a situation is tantamount to a “Yes" vote for sanction. If China was opposed to the sanction, it could have stopped it by a straight forward “No” vote to sanction. The real and pathetic story is that Eritrea could not get the support of China. The big question is why? Is it a diplomatic ineptness? Is it because Eritrea is so out-and-out wrong that nothing can be done? Whatever answers one gives to these questions, the real tribulations are within Eritrea.
Russia point blank voted for the sanction, so much so about the erection of the Pushkin monument in Asmara, much ado about nothing; as always there are misplaced priorities in Eritrea. How come Eritrea cannot get the support of Russia? The sanction did not come suddenly out of the blue. It was in the air for a very long time. What kind of assurance did Eritrea get from the Russian dignitaries who were visiting Eritrea? Or was this issue never discussed? Was Eritrea unable to read the signals coming from the Russians? Did the Eritrean leaders bungle this? Again, the bottom line is that the problems are still inherently within Eritrea.
There is a Tigrinya saying: “there is no cure for the one who hides his ailments.” Eritrea under the PFDJ is sick. It appears that the Eritrean leaders have lost all senses of reality; they are living in a delusion of grandeur; they act in the world stage as if they were leaders of a nation that is not small, war ravaged and poor and; they pretend to go toe-to-toe with the mightiest nation on the Earth – the USA. There is no diplomatic or political remedy for such kind of an ailment. The cure is as simple as a walk to the nearest psychiatric ward. All this hoopla in front of the whole wide world may be a mercy call for such an intervention. The supporters of the PFDJ need to wake up from their deep slumber and face this heartbreaking reality.
Stalin was a brutal dictator; he caused the deaths of millions of innocent Russians and East Europeans; still he was a master of diplomacy; he was able to charm the USA and the UK, so much so that he persuaded them to do his external bidding with the result that at the end of the World War II, he controlled half of Europe. When it comes to internal Eritrean matters, it appears that the PFDJ has perfected Stalin’s brutality and butchery; however when it comes to external matters the PFDJ has been unable to learn from the flexibility and finesse of Stalin's foreign diplomacy. (See: “Stalin the Court of the Red Star, by Simon Sebag Montefiore”)
Now, the PFDJ has to figure out how to cure its self inflicted pain. The problem is not external; it is not with the USA, or Ethiopia, or the United Nations. The problem is internal and the solution is within Eritrea. Insulting the USA or the UN will not help the matter.
For starters, Somalia does not border Eritrea; there is Ethiopia on one side and Djibouti on the other side separating Eritrea from Somalia. To put this in perspective, the geographical proximity between Eritrea and Somalia is akin to the geographical proximity between Eritrea and Kenya, or between Eritrea and Egypt. Thus, instability in Somalia should have no direct bearing to the national security of Eritrea. In addition, the fight in Somalia is mostly internal -- it is a civil war among Somali clans. In accordance with the rule of law, this civil war should not concern foreigners -- that is external forces should not interfere by favoring one group over another -- including Eritrea. No nation has a right to interfere in the internal affairs of other nations. As for Djibouti, it appears that the PFDJ has not learned an iota of a lesson from its uncalled border war with Ethiopia, another telling sign that the PFDJ is sick in the head. The PFDJ has an aversion to the rule of law -– it is lawless in its internal and external dealings. See The Rule of Law in Eritrea
I do not believe in name-calling and foul language. Nor does the current sanction call for any kind of protest when one really knows that the problem that needs immediate attention is internal to Eritrea. Still, if the PFDJ insists to go down the road of verbal abuse it better direct its rudeness against China and Russia for not “defending” Eritrea; if it still insists to protest through a massive demonstration then it better demonstrate against China and Russia; if it earnestly believes that the problem is external then it must face and confront China and Russia – two nations that “betrayed” and might have given the PFDJ a false hope and yet when it really counted they turned around and enabled and emboldened the USA to "punish" Eritrea. If the PFDJ cannot garner the support of Russia and China, then its isolation in the world arena of the power shakers and movers is complete.
Dictators never learn. Foolish of me to equate Isaias with Stalin, there are dictators that belong in a major league such as Stalin. Isaias relatively speaking though he matches Stalin in some of his brutality, he is not in the same club as Stalin -- a world figure who was intimately knowledgeable of world politics, a very well read and extremely intelligent man.
Rather, it seems that Isaias is in the little league of dumb dictators like Idi Amin of Uganda, Pol Pot of Kampuchea and Saddam Hussein of Iraq. To paraphrase a famous historian that it invariably happens that when a despot is not checked within his own nation by his own people, he gets checked by external powers that are superior to him. It appears that this is taking place here. All the above minor league dictators were not checked by their own peoples. Their undoings were due to foreigners. Idi Amin was checkmated by Tanzania; Pol Pot was checkmated by Vietnam and; Hussein was checkmated by the USA. If things go as they are today in Eritrea without any qualitative change, it looks that eventually Isaias will face the fate of Saddam Hussein. This may be a blessing in disguise for the Eritrean people.
Abraham G. Ghiorgis *** (*** First published under the pen-name of Mogos Tekeste)
There seems to be a lot of confusion on the status of the rule of law in Eritrea.
This confusion contributes towards the opposition being at odds with each other, extends a life support system to the oppressive political order of the People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ) and finally, it baffles the international democratic forces and discourages it from lending an effective and valuable targeted support to the Eritrean people.
Some use “the rule of law” clumsily and without having a deep understanding behind the meaning of that terminology. The current intensive debate about the current land ownership and use is a case in point; some want to solve the problems using group rights based on a very nebulous power sharing arrangement. An arrangement that is not in synch with the rule of law. If one scrutinizes their stands on other important issues such as -- working languages, the Eritrean-Ethiopian border demarcation -- one also finds their proposals have no basis on law.
Others naively claim that there is the rule of law in Eritrea. To sustain their claim, they maintain that Eritrea is ruled by the charter that was adopted by the PFDJ in its congress of 1994. They assert that this is a temporary and transient mechanism. (Heaven only knows how a system that has lasted for about fifteen years can be characterized as an ephemeral and a momentary one.) According to them, the charter is the law of the land. There is no contest on that point. However, from this, they erroneously equate this law of the land with the rule of law.
History of Legal Liberty:
From the legal perspective the history of liberty has progressed through three distinctive and qualitative stages. This progression may not be a one way linear progression in all societies. (At times there are regressions too. That had been the history of the East Europeans during the heydays of socialism.) Still, the general trend over a long period of time is progressive.
·“For much of human history, rulers and law were synonymous -- law was simply the will of the ruler.
·A first step away from such tyranny was the notion of rule by law, including the notion that even a ruler is under the law and should rule by virtue of legal means.
·Democracies went further by establishing the rule of law. Although no society or government system is problem-free, rule of law protects fundamental political, social, and economic rights and reminds us that tyranny and lawlessness are not the only alternatives.” See The Rule of Law
The First Stage, Where the Law of the Land is Arbitrary Edicts and Decrees:
In this stage, there are no rules to speak of. The leader essentially rules through arbitrary edicts and rules. There are no known and predictable rules that bind the leader. The leader and the state are synonymous. In such a system liberty is trashed. The words of the leader are the laws of the land. The living conditions of the people are no better than that of slaves or serfs. For the most part, Eritrea under the PFDJ is currently in such a very primitive stage of liberty.
The Second Stage, Where the Law of the Land is the Rule By Law:
In the second stage, the state is governed and bound by strict laws. The leader has to follow the rules. And mostly these rules are written. That is there are constitutions. These rules become the law of the land. Such a state is characterized as having a system that is governed by the rule by law.
In a system that is governed by the rule by law, though there are constitutions and rules, in real practice there is the absence of some civil liberties. Hence, even barbaric violation of human rights take the cover of legalities and court approvals. The second stage, though much more advanced than the first stage -- where the leader, or Capo, or King is the law --, the state sometimes has little respect for what are generally referred to as negative liberties. The most significant are: respect of freedom of religion, of association, of expression and of movement; respect of property rights; guarantee of the due process of law, such as “the existence of due process of law, for example, the legal concept of innocent until proven guilty; the concept of writ habeas corpus – ‘the right to be brought before a court to determine whether one has been lawfully detained.’” and; the enforcement of contracts and etc. These are rights that are reserved for individuals, and the state is legally prohibited from interfering with.
One can mention Ethiopia and China as two typical examples that have states that are governed by the rule by law. Both nations have constitutions and their leaders can substantiate to all they do to some articles and rules in their constitutions, despite the fact that some of their rules may violate various civil liberties. In short, they have legal covers to what they do. Still, a state that is governed by the rule by law is much better than a state that is not governed by any laws. At least, there are functioning courts. This second stage may enable a nation to move forward to a stage where civil liberties are respected – a period where the rule of law is supreme.
On the other hand, Eritrea is not even in the second stage, for now we might as well forget the rule of law. Worse, the leaders of the PFDJ are not even bound by the charters and rule of their very own organization, hence no known and predictable law of any kind. The leaders of the PFDJ cannot legally substantiate to some of their actions. See the Coup d’état in Eritrea
The Third Stage, Where the Law of the Land is the Rule Of Law:
In the third stage civil liberties are respected and a state that respects civil liberties follows the rule of law. Two typical examples of states that follow the rule of law are the USA and South Africa; in these nations the law of the land is the rule of law.
These civil liberties are also enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. These rights are also embedded in the ratified Eritrean constitution; something that the opposition rarely highlights and does all it can to bury it under the rug. I judge the merit of the ratified constitution by its superb stand on civil liberties. If Eritrea were to implement its constitution and strictly abide by its letter and content, for the most part one may rightly conclude that the law of the land in Eritrea is in tune with the rule of law. As a rule of thump, a nation that does not respect the universal declaration of human rights violates the rule of law. This is where Eritrea is now.
Like all theoretical explanations of stages, no phase is pure. Take the USA, for example, for the most part the constitution of the USA was in harmony with the rule of law. Still, there were some major blunders. The very constitution that protected liberties for the majority denied the same rights to the black minority and espoused slavery. This is a violation of the rule of law. It took almost hundred years and the presidency of Lincoln to restore the rule of law regarding the status of African-Americans. “More than 600,000 men died [in a bitter civil war] before the sin of slavery was purged.” Lincoln had to resort back to the declaration of independence where it claimed all men are created equal and not the constitution to have a legal footing in his fight to eradicate slavery. The very constitution of the USA also disenfranchised women for many years until the constitution was to be amended. They used the amendment process to refine their constitution and to be in concord with the rule of law.
This history is also lost among the Eritrean opposition; a group that is not saintly itself and yet has the audacity to demand an impossible perfection from others -- a perfect constitution is a pipedream. The ratified Eritrean constitution has an amendment provision too; another item that the opposition remains to be silent about, since it is easier to reject an entity than improve and develop it which requires a difficult, contemplative and arduous work. (For more insights on the rule of law, please see the books noted below. **)
The Need for a Single Coherent Message:
Some in the opposition emphasize on elections and not the rule of law as highlighted above. Recently, others claim that the problem in Eritrea, irrespective of the current coercive political order, is the dichotomy between the highlanders and the lowlanders, which they believe has disadvantaged the lowlanders. Or to put it differently and bluntly they claim that the highlanders are reaping benefits under the rule of the PFDJ. Nothing is far from the truth. Then they advocate for the Eritrean people to organize along sectarian and religious lines in order to fight for group rights. They categorize the highlanders (read Christians) in one group and the lowlanders (read Muslims) in another group. This so called dichotomy of the highlanders versus the lowlanders is blown up beyond proportions; in this the perpetuators of such half truths are no different than the PFDJ. Needles to say, the PFDJ is as repressive to the highlanders as it is to the lowlanders.
The solution to the problems of Eritrea is the establishment of the rule of law. We have to advocate for constitutional liberalism and the rule of law. Constitutional liberalism is defined as follows:
·“Constitutional liberalism … is not about the procedures for selecting government, but rather government's goals. It refers to the tradition, deep in Western history, that seeks to protect an individual's autonomy and dignity against coercion, whatever the source -- state, church, or society. The term marries two closely connected ideas. It is liberal because it draws on the philosophical strain, beginning with the Greeks, that emphasizes individual liberty. It is constitutional because it rests on the tradition, beginning with the Romans, of the rule of law. Constitutional liberalism developed in Western Europe and the United States as a defense of the individual's right to life and property, and freedom of religion and speech. To secure these rights, it emphasized checks on the power of each branch of government, equality under the law, impartial courts and tribunals, and separation of church and state. Its canonical figures include the poet John Milton, the jurist William Blackstone, statesmen such as Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, and philosophers such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Baron de Montesquieu, John Stuart Mill, and Isaiah Berlin. In almost all of its variants, constitutional liberalism argues that human beings have certain natural (or "inalienable") rights and that governments must accept a basic law, limiting its own powers, that secures them. Thus in 1215 at Runnymede, England's barons forced the king to abide by the settled and customary law of the land. In the American colonies these laws were made explicit, and in 1638 the town of Hartford adopted the first written constitution in modern history. In the 1970s, Western nations codified standards of behavior for regimes across the globe. The Magna Carta, the Fundamental Orders of Connecticut, the American Constitution, and the Helsinki Final Act are all expressions of constitutional liberalism.” See The Rise of Illiberal Democracy
I often stress that the only document that can effectively unify the Eritrean people is the ratified constitution. This is assuming that it be amended to exclude the state from being the sole owner of all Eritrean land, and to include the official languages of Eritrea. Regarding the other items of the rule of law, the ratified constitution is as good as many constitutions in the world including that of the USA.
The sad part is that we have an opposition that is unable to see something good, if not prefect, albeit not of its own creation in the ratified constitution. It is oblivious to the fact that it is much easier to rally the people inside Eritrea behind the ratified constitution. It is unaware to the fact that the international democratic force can be an effective advocate for the implementation of the constitution. All our grievances be it freedom of the press, religion, association and movement; respect of property rights and due process of law can be handled by a simple message that all Eritreans to the last person can propagate – implement the constitution.
It appears that the outright rejection of the constitution has become a shackle on the neck of the opposition. The rejection of the ratified constitution by many has completely left the opposition paralyzed. It simply does not have a coherent message. Hence the constant and petty squabbling and the non stop reorganizing and splitting. The PFDJ is equipped with a mindset that is engrossed in envy and hatred of educated Eritreans. The opposition should do its best to avoid an affliction of such grave malady. We should celebrate success and great works of Eritreans; and the constitution authored by Dr. Bereket and his colleagues is a work of great acclaim.
Dictatorial regimes eventually crumble down. History teaches us that the fate of the PFDJ will not be any different; if nothing else, the force of its deadweight inertia will be its undoing. When that time comes, the only weapon that the Eritrean people possess to create a secure, united, stable and viable liberal democratic state is the speedy implementation of the ratified constitution. This will be accomplished by the people inside Eritrea. The Diaspora opposition has a choice to speed up or delay this process.
Mogos Tekeste
Notes:
*My earlier posts are compiled in my BlogSpot. The site also provides links to articles that succinctly elucidate the concept of the rule of law and constitutional liberalism. The address is as follows:
( *** First published under the pen-name of Mogos Tekeste)
We know that there is no rule of law in Eritrea, worse; there are no known rules of any kind, only arbitrary edicts and decrees. In fact the very People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ) itself does not abide by the rules of its own organization. It is an organization that is gliding haphazardly without political radar even of the socialist kind.
In the organization of the PFDJ, the hierarchy of power is set up in a pyramid fashion. The chain of the formal reporting is as follows: the Chairman reports to the Executive Committee, which in turn reports to the Central Committee, which in turn reports to the general Congress. However, the real and effective power is at the apex of the pyramid, in the hands of the Chairman of the organization. This is a typical power structure of a leftist organization. Such a system inherently is a dictatorship. And one does not expect that such a system will respect the rule of law. This paper does not intend to address the concept of the rule of law. Rather, it simply shows that the leadership, as it stands now, is an illegal one as judged by the very rules and charters of the PFDJ itself. The leadership of the PFDJ is above the laws of the organization it is supposed to lead. And most importantly it is a leadership devoid of any moral and ethical values.
The components of the power structure of the PFDJ based on its own rules are supposed to have regular scheduled meetings in order to report, assess and correct their respective activities. The meetings are as follows: the congress every two years (extraordinary circumstances every two and half years); the central committee every six months and; the executive committee regularly less than six months. The question is does the PFDJ abide by these organizational rules? Does it conduct regular meetings of its various components?
The first congress of the PFDJ took place for the first time in an independent Eritrea in 1994, whereby it elected its Central Committee and promulgated its agenda and vision for Eritrea. Right there and then, the Central Committee elected the Executive Committee and its Chairman -- the components of the power structure that implement the agenda of the organization as stipulated by the Congress. At that time many Eritreans were still in the euphoria stage of the Eritrean independence; and as such some might have accepted this result as a temporary power structure for Eritrea too. They might have naively considered this as a temporary proxy representative leadership of Eritrea that is until the nation transitions to a parliamentary representative government based on the constitution. Sadly, however, it was never to be, the leadership of the PFDJ betrayed the implicit trust bestowed on it, and irrevocably broke the social contract.
Technically, the PFDJ’s second congress should have taken place by the latest sometime in 1997. However, the second Congress never met. If one goes strictly by the PFDJ’s rules and charters, the Central Committee, the Executive Committee and the Chairman of the PFDJ are all illegitimate. The legitimacy of the Congress that elected these bodies expired sometime in 1997. These bodies have no legal standings. By the PFDJ’s own rules, they are all illegal entities and illicit leaders.
The congress of the PFDJ has not met for about fifteen years in a sovereign and independent Eritrea. In between those years, one can have at least five general meetings of a congress. (To put this in perspective, during the armed struggle the EPLF conducted two meetings of its congress; the time that elapsed in between the two was ten years.) This means there are no summations and assessments of where Eritrea is heading even by the socialist standards that the PFDJ swears on. To be fair, the real Central Committee and the Executive Committee, elected in 1994, do not exist since many of its members are either in the dungeon or dead or have left the organization. The sole and only entity that exists and exerts power is the Chairman of the organization -- Isaias Afwerki. This very chairman has usurped the powers of the Congress, the Central Committee and the Executive Committee of his organization. Currently, no one can pinpoint to any charter or rule of the PFDJ that can support the legitimacy and the legality of the powers of the Chairman of the organization.
If we take the Central Committee of the PFDJ, the last time it met was in 2001. After its last meeting, the G-15 and other dissenters were put in prison. Even the leftover of the Central Committee has not met for about eight years. In between those years, one can have at least sixteen Central Committee meetings. There are no checks and balances within the PFDJ organization right now, since no scheduled meetings and reporting of activities take place. If the PFDJ itself does not practice a so called “participatory democracy,” how can there be a “participatory democracy” in Eritrea?
Some of the main appeals of the G-15 were that the PFDJ abide by its own rules and charters; that it holds another congress, that its central committee meets every six months, and that its executive committee submit reports of its activities to its leadership -- the central committee, as stipulated in the rules of the organization. These are simple and innocent demands; that is if we ignore the pleas of implementing the ratified constitution. Isaias would not listen to the simple and earnest request of his colleagues, and that his organization actually mandates.
In practice, a very sly and quiet coup d’état took place in Eritrea. Isaias and his accomplices by violating the rules of their organization illegally usurped power. This seems to be lost among all of us, worst of all among the members of the PFDJ -- who are still blind to the fact that their leadership has no legal ground to stand on.
Despite the fact that the power structure of the leftist organizations by their very nature are dictatorial, the conducting of regular scheduled general meetings of congress and central committee, sometimes allow for the emergence of relatively reformist personalities. Such are the cases with Khrushchev and Gorbachev in the Soviet Union and Deng Xiaoping in China. Not a chance in Eritrea, since such outlets for the possibility of the emergence of a reformist leadership within the PFDJ itself is closed, since scheduled meetings of the power structures do not take place.
Isaias does not want to take a chance of having a meeting of a general congress or a central committee of the PFDJ. It appears he does not want to gamble with having such a wide gathering, since he does not know of what may transpire in such a meeting.
It is as clear as daylight that Isaias and his top disciples have violated the rules and charters of their organization. The question then arises how come Isaias has still followers? The answer lies in the characteristics and moral fabric of those who follow him. One has to study the history of collectivist and socialist systems and their followers to understand the integrity of those Eritreans who still follow Isaias.
In a dictatorial political system the worst of a society gets to the top. Hayek writing about the collectivist and the socialist systems gives the following points in describing the ethical attributes of a group that follow a dictator.
• "If a numerous group is needed, a strong enough to impose their views on the values of life on all the rest, it will never be those with highly differentiated and developed tastes -- it will be those who form the 'mass' in the derogatory sense of the term, the least original and independent, who will be able to put the weight of their numbers behind their particular ideals.
• ... [The dictator] will be able to obtain the support of all the docile and gullible, who have no strong convictions of their own but are prepared to accept a ready-made system of values if it is only drummed into their ears sufficiently loudly and frequently. It will be those whose vague and imperfectly formed ideas are easily swayed and whose passions and emotions are readily aroused who will thus swell the ranks of the totalitarian party.
• ... It seems to be almost a law of human nature that it is easier for people to agree on a negative program -- on the hatred of an enemy, on the envy of those better off -- than on any positive task. The contrast between the 'we' and 'they,' the common fight against those outside the group, seems to be an essential ingredient in any creed which will solidly knit together a group for common action. ... The enemy, whether he be internal … or external, seems to be an indispensable requisite in the armory of a totalitarian leader.
• … The desire of the individual to identify himself with a group is very frequently the result of a feeling of inferiority and that therefore his want will be satisfied only if membership of the group confers some superiority over outsiders. Sometimes, it seems, the very fact that these violent instincts which the individual knows he must curb within the group can be given a free range in the collective action toward the outsider, becomes a further inducement for merging personality in that of the group.
• ... While to the great individualist social philosophers ... power itself has always appeared the archevil, to the strict collectivist it is a goal in itself.... It is only... that the desire to organize social life according to a unitary plan itself springs largely from a desire for power. It is even more the outcome of the fact that in order to achieve their end, collectivist must create power -- power over men wielded by other men -- of magnitude never known , and that their success will depend on the extent to which they achieve such power.
• ... The principle that the end justifies the means in individualist ethics is regarded as the denial of all morals. In collectivist ethics it becomes necessarily the supreme rule; there is literally nothing which the consistent collectivist must not be prepared to do if it serves 'the good of the whole,' because the 'good of the whole' is to him the only criterion of what ought to be done.
• ... To be a useful assistant in the running of a totalitarian state, it is not enough that a man should be prepared to accept specious justification of vile deeds; he must himself be prepared actively to break every moral rule he has ever known if this seems necessary to achieve the end set for him. Since it is the supreme leader who alone determines the ends, his instruments must have no moral convictions of their own, they must be above all, be necessarily committed to the person of the leader; but next to this the most important thing is that they should be completely unprincipled and literally capable of everything. They must have no ideals of their own which they want to realize; no ideas about right or wrong which might interfere with the intentions of the leader.
• ... Yet while there is little that is likely to induce men who are good by [moral standards] to aspire to leading positions in the totalitarian machine, and much to deter them, there will be special opportunities for the ruthless and unscrupulous. There will be jobs to be done about the badness of which taken by themselves nobody has any doubt, but which have to be done in the service of some higher end, and which have to be executed with the same expertness and efficiency as any others. And as there will be need for actions which are bad in themselves, and which all those still influenced by traditional morals will be reluctant to perform, the readiness to do bad things becomes a path to promotion and power."
See: "The Road to Serfdom," Chapter 10, "Why The Worst Get On Top," by F. A. Hayek.
If not the rank and file members of the PFDJ, the middle and high level cadres of the PFDJ do possess such vile ethical attributes.
The PFDJ and its leaders have no legitimacy. They have violated their own rules and charters. One cannot talk of the PFDJ as an organization representing any Eritrean. It only serves Isaias and his top cadres.
Abraham G. Ghiorgis *** (*** First published under the pen-name of Mogos Tekeste)
This is a follow up and a refinement to “A Modest Proposal for a Away Out,” to the working languages of Eritrea.***
Native Languages of Eritrea and their Percentage Shares:
Primarily, in order to have a firm grounding on this issue, we have to start from the same base as to what the native languages of Eritrea are. In addition, what their percentage breakdowns are?
(Note: The total percentage above comes to 101.4%. I surmise that the discrepancy appears to be of the percentage that Wikipedia displays for the Saho as 5%. The CIA Worldfact book generally matches with Wikipedia, except for the Saho where the CIA shows 3%. If one makes that adjustment of the Saho to 3% the total percentage is pretty close to 100 %.)
This table highlights some very significant points. First, Tigrinya and Tigre as native languages cover eighty one percent (81%) of the Eritrean population. From this, one can reasonably deduce that Tigrinya and Tigre qualify to be the working languages of Eritrea. No reasonable person will raise any eyebrow to such a proposal. Second, Arabic as a “native language” covers only 2.4%; a share that is less than that covered separately by Saho, Afar and Beja as native languages. If one were to go strictly by a “native language” criterion then declaring Arabic as a working language of Eritrea will be an aberration.
Cultural and Heritage Issues:
I perfectly understand cultural and heritage norms and values flourish and advance through native languages, since they are expressions of a national identity. Hence, it is important that native languages be preserved and enriched. In addition, through the studying of the words that native languages use for animals and plants it helps anthropologist and geneticists to trace the genetic makeup of animals and plants, their original source, how they were domesticated, their dispersion through out the world and the routes they took in populating the wide world. (See: “Guns, Germs and Steel - The Fates of Human Societies” by Jared Diamond.) This gives an added importance to the preservation of native languages. A liberal democratic government should enforce that the native languages be taught in schools and universities as regular language classes. In addition, all necessary materials should be provided so that experts in departments of history, anthropology, linguistics, sociology etc can study the native languages. The locals are also free to use their native languages in however they desire in their markets, day-to-day lives, religious institutions, and private associations. This should include dealings with government entities. One cannot conclude from this though that all native languages become the working languages of a nation. It is not practical or workable. Otherwise, either by deliberate design or by default one language (or two languages) becomes the de facto working language/s - such as Tigrinya in current Eritrea.
In my first post, I received some constructive criticisms by wise and astute compatriots. I went back to the drawing board and did further research. Now, I admit that one cannot conduct affairs that are of cultural and national nature in a foreign language, though this is usually of a symbolic nature, for example the conducting of as simple as a national anthem. This involves matter of national identity, dignity and pride. That is also how Singapore addresses its working language issues; that is English is the working language of all matters; however, when it comes to issues of identity then affairs are conducted in Malay, one of the three official languages along with English. I reconsider my original position of sticking only to English as the working language of Eritrea. Instead, I recommend that English to be one the working languages of Eritrea, along with Eritrean native languages. As to the native languages, my personal desire is to designate Tigrinya and Tigre as the official languages of Eritrea because of their wide coverage of the Eritrean population.
Why English?
I have no intention to rehash points already covered in “A Modest Proposal for a Way Out.” (Sep. 5, 2009, Asmarino.com). (Also, See: “English as a Global Language” by David Crystal.)
In this post, I want to add three very important points. (It so happens that some were admirably covered in “Cabbages and Kings and Why the Sea is Boiling Hot - VII, by Mengs TM - Oct 20, 2009, at Awate.com.”)
First, over the last forty years a big portion of the Eritrean people has been dispersed all over the world. Some estimates conducted during the armed struggle era put the number as high as one third of the Eritrean total population. Heaven only knows how high that number is now, there is no doubt that it is a huge number.
A big share of that number includes Eritreans born and raised in foreign lands; this includes not only children but also grand children of Eritrean immigrants. The majority has no ability to speak the native Eritrean languages, but it has a good command of the English language, and relatively speaking is highly educated and talented. The only medium of communication among itself across the world and with the rest of the population in Eritrea is English. How does such a group get integrated with Mother Eritrea? Let it speak Tigrinya or Tigre or any other Eritrean native language is not an answer. Here is where English becomes handy. By any measure, this is a big asset to Eritrea. Including English as one of the working languages of Eritrea will facilitate such an accommodation of a very talented group.
Second, some sort of economic integration will come about in the Horn of Africa or in the whole continent of Africa. This may be akin to the European Union. This is a realistic wish list. It is a question of survival and a necessity. When that time comes, I believe that the official working language of such an African entity will be English. Adopting English as one of the working languages of Eritrea may not give us a competitive edge over other Africans, since English is an official language of many important African nations, but at least it will enable us to be in the game. For sure, we will not put ourselves in a disadvantageous position.
Third, English is one of the official languages of many Asian and African nations, despite the fact it is not a native language of such nations. Hence, we have to get rid of any inhibitions we may have of adopting a foreign language as one of the working languages of Eritrea.
In Asia, English is one of the official languages of the following nations: Fiji; India; Pakistan; Philippines and; Singapore.
India is a very proud ancient nation with a very highly developed civilization. No one in his right mind would accuse the Indians of having a colonized mind. Yet, with the advent of the Internet, their good command of the English language has given them a tremendous advantage in the global economy on top of their scientific and mathematical prowess.
Singapore though a city-state has some similarities with Eritrea. It is a multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic nation. At one time, its bigger neighbors wanted to swallow it. It pushed peaceful good neighborly relations with all its neighbors and consequently greatly benefited from free trade. At one time, the EPLF wished of replicating Singapore in the Horn of Africa. That is a very good wish to keep. We can learn a lot from Singapore. In Singapore, the English language became a unifying factor on top of its economic advantages. There is no need to reinvent the wheel, if we can learn something positive from a nation similarly situated like ours. (See: “From Third World to First: The Singapore Story 1965 - 2000” by Lee Kuan Yew.)
In Africa, English is one of the official languages of the following nations: Botswana; Cameron; The Gambia; Ghana; Kenya; Lesotho; Liberia; Madagascar; Malawi; Mauritius; Namibia; Nigeria; Rwanda; Seychelles; Sierra Leone; South Africa; Sudan; Swaziland; Tanzania; Uganda; Zambia and; Zimbabwe.
Regarding this matter, there are two nations of a special note in Africa. These are Madagascar and Rwanda. They were not colonies of an English-speaking nation. Up until recently, English was not recognized as one of their official languages, since they did not interact with the language. However, they realize that with the growing importance of the Internet and hence English, they did not want to be left out of the economic prosperity that the Internet provides and as such, they decided to include English as one of their official languages.
In sum, Eritrea uses English in all matters of importance. Going one-step forward and declaring English as one of the working languages of Eritrea will only enhance and help advance what is already a reality on the ground. It could unify our ethnic groups without Eritreans losing indigenous heritage and culture. We will be in good company with five Asian and twenty-two African nations.
As aside, Negarit of Awate.com in an article (“Like an Aged Wine”) posted it its site of October 2009 opposing English to be the working language of Eritrea. Awate.com invariably carries sixteen articles in its front page. On average, English articles are about 14, which is 88%; sometimes all sixteen articles are in English, which is 100%. Considering this real practice of Awate.com, opposing English as a working language of Eritrea does not make sense. Awate.com in its daily practice implicitly admits that in Eritrea, English has more value than Arabic.
The Case of Arabic:
It is important to clear out of the way, in my belief, two wrong-headed ideas.
First, some are advising the Tewhado and Tigrinya that we should leave it to our Muslim compatriots as to the decision of considering Arabic to be one of the working languages of Eritrea. According to them, Tigrinya is allowed to be the working language and Arabic should be the working language without any opposition. I believe this is a wrongheaded proposal. A working or official language is a national matter that should involve all and not one segment of the people. I strongly believe in the rule of law. In a nation where there is the rule of law, the minority rights are respected. The majority cannot use the cover of democracy to enforce the tyranny of the majority. So far, in this debate I do not see such a danger. To be sure, no one is opposed to the use of Arabic in whatever way one wants to use it. The debate is about the working languages of Eritrea. There is a lot of difference between the two.
Second, I do not accept as a gospel truth and as a sacrosanct what our fathers might have decided during the Federation era in Eritrea. What I know for sure is that the Eritrean people did not vote for Federation. In my view, all that took place during that time including the acceptance of Tigrinya and Arabic as official languages of Eritrea are open for reexamination and scrutiny.
Now back to the beef of why I believe that Arabic does not qualify to be one of the working languages Eritrea. The issues revolve around two significant points.
First, Arabic is a native language of only the Rashaida in Eritrea. As the table above shows as a native language, Arabic covers only 2.4% of the Eritrean people. If that is not the case, the onus is on those who advocate for Arabic to be the working language of Eritrea to substantiate it with figures and numbers. In all fairness, how can one with a straight face choose Arabic to be the working language of Eritrea and not Tigre - which has coverage as a native language of 31% of the Eritrean people?
Second, some claim that they use Arabic in their religious schools and religious institution thus Arabic should qualify as one of the working languages of Eritrea. Similarly, the Tewahdos use Geez in their religious schools and churches. They use Geez in such important occasions as religious holidays, prayers, baptism, marriage ceremonies, funereal services and all the attendant ceremonies that follow. Here, I do not see that much difference in the way the Tewahdos use Geez from that our Muslim compatriots use Arabic during comparable occasions. I can attest to the fact that the Tewahdo masses have no clue of the Geez language. I conjecture that may be the case with the Eritrean Muslim masses regarding Arabic. Still no matter how one cuts it, a language does not become a working language of a nation just because a religious institution uses it. To examine this issue in more detail, it becomes important to examine how non Arab Muslims handle the Arabic language. The question is do Muslim nations who are not Arabs accept Arabic as one of their official languages?
The most important almost exclusive Muslim nations in Asia are Indonesia; Pakistan; and Afghanistan. In none of these nations is Arabic one of the official languages.
India, Bangladesh, Malaysia and Singapore have significant percentages of their populations of Muslim faith. Yet, in none of these nations is Arabic one of the official languages.
In the Middle East, Turkey and Iran are two non-Arab nations with almost hundred percent Muslim populations. Yet in none of these nations is Arabic one of the official languages.
In Black Africa, some of the major nations with significant Muslim populations are Nigeria, Niger, Burkina Faso, Mali, Senegal, Guinea, Ethiopia, The Gambia, and Sierra Leone. Yet in none of these nations is Arabic one of the official languages.
The story above cannot be an anomaly and just a simple fluke. The real anomaly exists with those who are advocating for Arabic to be an official language despite the fact that the coverage of Arabic as a native language in Eritrea is only 2.4%. We are now reaping the fruit of the deadly seeds sowed by the Federation by imposing Tigrinya and Arabic to be the official languages of Eritrea. What is that poisonous fruit?
Polarization of the Eritrean Society:
What are the ramifications to the Eritrean society if we mandate that Tigrinya and Arabic to be the two official languages of Eritrea? I believe such a mandate will be nothing but tantamount to creating two different societies in Eritrea. One a Christian anchored around Tigrinya, and one a Muslim anchored around Arabic. Eritrea will be a house divided, two mindsets that will be unable to reconcile with each other. This will be the worst polarization of a society. This kind of social engineering is not in tune with the sociological factors of the Eritrean society. How does one assume such will be the result? One can see the result of this in our very debates. Then find its roots by going back to the way the public educational system was during the Federation era.
During the Federation era, we had two parallel educational tracking systems, at least in the elementary school. One that employed exclusively Tigrinya as a medium of instruction (up to fourth grade) that almost solely catered to the Christians, such a school never provided Arabic even as a language class. Its opposite one exclusively employed Arabic as a medium of instruction that almost solely catered to the Muslims. In keeping with its opposite, such a school, I surmise, never provided Tigrinya even as a language class.
This misguided language based, and in real practice religion based, parallel educational tracking system right from the start created two different societies within one nation. This division was ingrained in the minds of children who were not sophisticated enough to understand what was going on. The only impression such a system left in their minds was that they had to avoid the children who did not go to the Tigrinya based schools; implicitly and subtly, they were told that the other children were not like them. The same went on with those who went to the Arabic based schools. The result is gross and complete miscommunication, and we had two artificially created “incoherent camps” of schoolchildren. I believe this was one of the fertile and divisive grounds that contributed to the bickering and misunderstanding of the EPLF and the ELF.
Those who are advocating for Arabic and Tigrinya to be the working languages of Eritrea have to tell us clearly how they will overcome such a hurdle; some of us who are in opposite camps of such a debate are products of that educational system in Eritrea. Sadly, the minds of some are stuck in the 1950s and 1960s. Their minds are so clouded and cluttered with some of the undesirable baggage of the Federation era that they are unable to look forward. We have to look ahead and appreciate the value of the English language as a unifying factor on top of the economic advantages it provides. Peace.
Abraham G. Ghiorgis *** (*** First published under the pen-name of Mogos Tekeste) The land tenure system of the PFDJ has taken a center stage. It has become a very volatile issue. We know the PFDJ will further aggravate the problem, and no solution will come from it.
The question is does the opposition have the intellectual caliber to take charge and have a road map that will tackle this issue step by step? Does it have the wisdom and the humility to learn from history in solving this issue on behalf and for the advancement and welfare of the Eritrean people? In short, will it able to recommend a proposal that is in accordance with the rule of law and the respect of property rights and thereby ensure liberty? I wish it all the good luck. In the sprit of doing my share, if it helps here is a sequel to my “A Modest Proposal for a Way Out,” and my refinement on this subject.
The current status in Eritrea is that all land is nationalized by the state. Maybe appropriate terms to use is that the PFDJ owns all land in Eritrea. And one uses land in Eritrea only under the guidance and permission of the PFDJ. Even at that, one is not assured of getting a piece of the action, since one is at the mercy of the whimsical behavior of the PFDJ. The situation we are in today is much different than the situation that existed in Eritrea during the Italian colonialism and during the Federation and the Haileselassie eras. Under the rule of the PFDJ, politics and sometimes who has hard currencies enters into the equation of who gets land. This means the whole Eritrean population has to blindly obey the PFDJ in order to get land. This is nothing but slavery.
Villages - the so called traditional Diesa, and families - the so called traditional Tselmi, no longer own land in Eritrea. These Diesa and Tselmi land tenure systems used to be the two forms of land ownership in Eritrea (at least in the Highlands); the former more prominent in Hamasien and Akelguzai and the latter more prominent in Seraye. Now, the state owns all land in Eritrea be it in the Highlands or the Lowlands. That should be the starting premise of any serious examination of the land question in Eritrea.
Needles to say, monopolization of ownership of the land by the state is nothing but condemning the people to slavery. “Private property is the foundation of liberty.” One of the fundamental foundations of ensuring liberty in Eritrea is to make sure that the land ownership revert back to the real owners of the land - the people. The ratified constitution has to take into account of this important matter and needs to be modified accordingly. At least experience has vividly shown us of the folly of allowing the state to monopolize the ownership of land. This has never happened in Eritrean history. (Even the Italian colonizers did not monopolize the ownership of Eritrean land hundred percent.)
In the lowlands, just because the settlers happen to be pastoralists does not mean they do not own the land. They do, they know where their herds are supposed to graze and not. This is irrespective of the way the Italian colonialists behaved in this matter. The Italians passed a draconian measure where they decreed a big portion of the Eritrean land (in the Highlands and Lowlands) to be state land. One of the biggest victims of that measure was the Tewahdo church where it lost a lot of land; the aim was to emasculate the Tewahdo church and thus weaken the Eritrean resistance against Italian aggression. No surprise here, since they came to Eritrea to steal its land and its natural resources. Still, it is questionable that the Italians ever enforced their own edicts absolutely and hundred percent of the time in all lands so decreed state property. (The Tewahdo church was a different matter since it was a challenger to the Italian power.) I have no intention to whitewash the sins of a colonizer. Eritrea is supposedly now under the hands of is own “children.” No nation worth its salt will inherit, honor and live by the brutal colonial decree. Sadly, that is how the PFDJ is behaving in the lowlands. All decent Eritreans should support the restoration of the ownership of the land in the lowlands to its rightful owners - the descendents of the original ancestral settlers of the land.
Once that is established those who want to make use of the land, say for farming, should enter into a commercial contractual agreements with the owners, whereby they pay rents. The contracts should be free of government intervention. The role of the government in this case should only be to enforce contractual agreements willingly entered upon. That is what the rule of law calls upon in this matter. Let normal free market operation of demand and supply determine the price, the nature and duration of the contractual commercial agreements. If the state wants to take some land for the use of all kinds of worthy developmental projects then it has to negotiate with the owners, the people, and pay them market price as a compensation for the exchange of their land. Only despots who have no respect for property rights take the property of people without due compensation. Needles to state this principle applies all over Eritrea - Lowlands and Highlands.
As to land ownership in the villages of the highlands, as a first step, I recommend that we revert back to the traditional Diesa system. I have no intention to glorify such a system. It has its own pitfalls. But with some tweaking such as the equal treatment of woman and man, it beats an ownership that is monopolized by the state. Cities such as Asmara who are encroaching on peasant lands should pay market price compensation to the villagers whose lands have been incorporated into the cities. In a traditional Diesa system, only the village owns the land and not like current Eritrea where the state owns the land. The assumption by some that we currently have a traditional Diesa system is wrong. We do not. The only thing we have that looks like a Diesa system is that the apportionment of the land is done “equally” among all the villagers. Even in this respect, unlike the traditional Diesa system, sometimes politics enters into the equation of who gets land. The traditional Diesa system includes ownership and apportionment - ownership belongs to the village and apportionment is carried out equally among all adult villagers. The beauty of this traditional system is politics does not enter into the calculation of who gets land. The only and sole qualification of getting plots of land is one has to prove that one belongs to the village through blood lineage. In short, one has to hail from the village. And one then has a share in the village land.
These days it maybe very difficult to go back to the Tselmi system since years have passed after its demolition by the Dergue regime. This system is even much stricter than the Diesa system since the way one gets plots of land is determined by family blood lineage, a much narrower criterion. Again politics does not enter into the equation of who gets land. In short, one has to prove that once blood lineage belongs to a family. And then one has a share in the family land. This smells a little like capitalism. Now, it is difficult to restore back the Tselmi system, thus the only recourse for areas who used to have the Tslemi system, including my home village, is to adopt the Diesa system since for all intents and purposes they are using anyhow a system that looks like the Diesa when it comes to apportionment among the villagers. That way initially after the collapse of the PFDJ, we will have a Diesa system in all Eritrean land settled by agriculturalists. There is also a need of an adjustment to the system to treat women equally as men in the apportionment and the administration of the land.
What we observe in both systems is that relatively liberty is ensured. Authority of land administration is done at the level where there is intimate knowledge - at the local and at the village levels. This has some hints of federalism, at least in land administration. In these systems, there is no need of kowtowing and cajoling to the state in order to get plots of land. These systems give some sort of semblance of assurance for the people not to fear the state. If one is Eritrean by blood one is assured of getting plots of land through both systems, no questions asked. Our traditional customary laws, the so called HiGi EndAba, deal enormously with this land and inheritance issues and had served Eritreans beautifully with relative justice and fairness for more than about five centuries. Economists may quarrel how such laws and systems inefficiently allocate resources. But to be sure they kept the peace in Eritrea. And in practice these traditional systems have proved themselves that they are relatively better models than the national collectivist model of the PFDJ.
The intention of a liberal democrat is to remove a collectivist entity from interfering in the individual farming economic activities of the Eritrean people. As our people say, let the farmer farm and let the trader trade - no need of government intervention.
Personally, I believe the Tselmi system is relatively a better economic system than the Diesa. The Tselemi system is much closer to a private ownership of land, while the Diesa system is a communal system. In other words, the Diesa is nothing but a form of communism in land ownership - village ownership. Naturally the Diesa faces the economic inefficiency that is inherent in a system of common property, the so called “Free Rider“ problem. That is since the land is owned by the whole village there is an incentive (or disincentive) for no one to take good care of it because of the continual apportionment of the land every five to seven years. There is no accountability. The individual reaps the benefits and passes the associated costs to the village.
Moreover, it ties the farmer to his village, no incentive to move around and take economic risks. One cannot mortgage the land and open other worthwhile economic activities. That is one cannot borrow capital from banks in order to advance worthwhile economic activities using the land as a collateral, since the village and not the farmer owns the land. In short, there is no credit market to speak of. A prosperous economy cannot function properly without an efficient and well regulated credit market. It does not encourage an entrepreneurial spirit, since capital that is tied to the land is not allowed to move freely to other economic activities. An active, innovative and energetic farmer cannot expand his agricultural enterprises since land is not bought and sold like other commodities in the marketplace. The market is not allowed to freely and efficiently allocate the resources. Hence land degradation and economic inefficiency and rigidity. A lot of latent capital remains hidden, unused and buried in an immovable land. The curse of many third world poor nations. (See: “The Mystery of Capital,” by Hernando De Soto.)
Hence, eventually a liberal democratic state has to radically change the method of land ownership in Eritrea from that of a communal one to that of a private and individual one. This requires a serious and methodical study by economists, anthropologists and sociologists. In a nut shell, I believe the Diesa system has to be changed from a communal ownership into that of ownership of plots of land by individual farmers. Land has to be governed by the rules of a free economic market competition. This is a move from a land ownership that is monopolized by a state, to that initially of an ownership by a village, with the final destination being to that of ownership of plots of land by individual farmers. In other words, there is a need to move towards private property in land ownership. This assures individual liberty and ensures economic progress. That is the only way Eritrea can progress in agriculture. This does not mean the state should have no role in land ownership; it can and should have but it should not monopolize it. (For more about this subject see: [1] “Property and Freedom,” by Richard Pipes; [2] “The Wealth and Poverty of Nations,” by David Landes.)
An attitude of an Eritrean on how land ownership should be handled tells a lot. In particular, it reveals if once mind is still cluttered with unworkable collectivist and socialist ideas. A baggage that is still around with us. This is a test if one really believes in the rule of law and the liberties that entail from it. Like the respect of property rights and enforcement of contractual obligations, two fundamental requirements for a market economy to operate smoothly. Fundamentals that make property secure. Once property is secure liberty is ensured. Agriculture is the biggest sector of the Eritrean economy. Well, if one believes in a market economy, let us see how one handles the issue of land ownership in Eritrea. There cannot be a market economy in Eritrea if ownership of land is socialized and monopolized by the state. No two ways about it.
