The Language Question Revisited

-->

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?

Table of Eritrean Native Languages

Language	Percentage
Tigrinya	50%
Tigre	31%
Saho	5%
Afar	5%
Beja (spoken by Hedareb)	2.5%
Arabic (spoken by Rashaida)	2.4%
Bilen	2%
Kunama	2%
Nara	1.5%

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_Eritrea

(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.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_where_English_is_an_official_language

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.

Mogos Tekeste

The Land Question Revisited

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.

Thanks.

Mogos Tekeste
September 25, 2009

A Modest Proposal for a Way Out

Abraham G. Ghiorgis ***
(*** First published under the pen-name of Mogos Tekeste)

There are two major issues that have come to the surface that are consuming Eritrean writers in the Internet. These are the land tenure and holding system and the working language issues in current Eritrea. These issues sometimes take the cover of religious overtones overlaid with highland (Tigrinya) versus lowland (the rest) dichotomy. This short paper is a modest proposal that may enhance the debate and may refocus the issue to the concepts of the rule of law.

Many believe that the ratified constitution mishandled these two issues -- land and language. Right now, whether the ratified constitution did a disservice or not is a moot point since the constitution never saw the daylight.

I believe that land should not be monopolized by the state, otherwise it is tantamount to condemning the people to slavery. The ratified constitution failed Eritreans big time on this cardinal issue. In essence, the very constitution that is supposed to defend the respect of the rule of law violated the respect of property rights. As they say, property is the foundation of liberty.

As to the working language of Eritrea we have to get rid of all backward inhibitions and adopt English as the working language. There is much writing and rightly so about the Tigrnyazation of Eritrea. It reminds me of the dark days of the attempt of Amharanization of Eritrea during the last years of the Federation era. We hated it and we did all kinds of disobedience to show our displeasure. This is akin to those who are displeased right now with the wide use of Tigrinya to the exclusion of other Eritrean languages. It is downright oppression. There are no two ways about it.

It becomes paramount to the Tigrinya native speakers to be sensitive of this issue and be in the forefront to come up with a proposal of a working language of Eritrea that is amicable and equitable to all Eritreans. It is for that and other reasons, I am proposing for a serious study of the use of the English language as the working language of Eritrea.

The religion issue though a very significant one is a periphery to the two other major topics -- land and language. Still, sometimes the debate on the language and land issues appear to be a camouflage for the matter of religious tolerance or intolerance in Eritrea. I believe like all other secular Eritreans we should strictly follow the separation of religion and state. Respect of freedom of religion should be guaranteed unconditionally for all religions. This include what the PFDJ refers too as traditional religions in Eritrea and also all Christian religions that are in competition with the Tewahdo church. This is despite the fact that by upbringing and culture, I belong to and love the Tewahdo church. I also believe that the Tewahdo church is an Eritrean institution that survived and sustained traditions, cultures, learning, compassion and tolerance for centuries. It is foolhardy to assume that this Eritrean icon now suddenly needs the support and the protection of the atheist PFDJ. This is just a hogwash and its intent is nothing but to create division and confusion among the people. As to politicization of religion, I believe that we summarily should disallow any people that try to organize themselves as a political party around religion for the sole aim to seize political power be it through the ballot or otherwise.

As to the land issue, the PFDJ resorted back to its ideological roots and is doing what all socialists have done in history -- nationalize all land. When it comes to apportionment of the land, there is one major difference in its handling from the way regular vanilla style socialists handle apportionment. The PFDJ does not leave the land to be solely in the hand of the state, rather depending on the situation sometimes it apportions the land to the highest bidder. That is to people with dollars or other hard currencies. It is a mafia style - in essence we have a Mafia-Socialism system. This is the theoretical underpinning of the issue. That is also one of the main reasons that at times I get a lot of terror and nightmare when I smell socialism in the writings and practices of some in the opposition.

Back to the land grabbing practical issue: This is happening now in a very pronounced way in the lowlands. I condemn it unconditionally and categorically. It should be rejected outright. What is missing in the writings is though that this land grabbing has been going on from the get go, from the time the EPLF set foot in Asmara, in all the villages of the outskirts of Asmara -- in the surrounding areas of Asmara broadly defined as Kebabi. These are areas settled by the currently much maligned followers of the Tewahdo church and speakers of the Tigrinya language. Talk about the might of the dollar and other hard currencies, it is in these areas where the concept of market price compensation for properties nationalized by the state is due to the owners of the properties went down the drain. This is a violation of the respect of property rights. I also wonder who the buyers of these properties are -- or may I say who the accomplices and enablers of the thieves are? To my knowledge, not a single article was written defending the rights of the Kebabi villagers. I do not hail from these villages, nor am I from Hamasien, lest I be accused of favoritism. I am only highlighting the double standards and the hypocrisy on the part of some quarters. In fact, sometimes the plight of the Kebabi villagers is dismissed by insinuating that they are supporters of the regime, blanket accusation and categorization without doing any serious study. A sin in a system that respects the rule of law.

As to the working language issue, we know that Tigrinya is not a language that has tremendous literature in studies of science, mathematics, politics, sociology, anthropology, law, history, economics, medicine, engineering, novels and whatnot. In this respect, the other native languages of Eritrea are even worse than Tigrinya. When it comes to Arabic, yes it has a highly developed and much advanced literature in all fields of study. It would be very foolish on my part if I attempt to compare Tigrinya to Arabic; I am not and by any measure in varied fields of studies Tigrinya would not even hold a candle to Arabic. To make sure that there is no misunderstanding, this paper is an advocate for English, nothing more and nothing less. In that context, right now I believe that Arabic is not relatively as advanced as English for example, despite the fact it was very prominent and single handedly preserved and advanced civilization in the middle ages. Still, according to the Economist magazine, one measure of the dissemination of knowledge and learning is the number of books that get translated into a language from other foreign languages. This is one of the critical measures of the advancement of culture and prosperity of a people. Based on that criteria, the same magazine states that in a year less books get translated into Arabic than those that are translated into Greek, despite the fact that Arabic is spoken by more people. The Economist magazine states among other things:

“If you trawl through comparative global economic and social statistics, it is not difficult to paint a bleak picture of Arab failure, based on a broad pattern of underperformance in investment, productivity, trade, education, social development and even culture. The total manufacturing exports of the entire Arab world have recently been below those of the Philippines (with less than one-third the population) or Israel (with a population not much bigger than Riyadh’s). From 1980 to 2000 Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, Syria and Jordan between them registered 367 patents in the United States. Over the same period South Korea alone registered 16,328 and Israel 7,652. The number of books translated into Arabic every year in the entire Arab world is one-fifth the number translated by Greece into Greek.” The Economist, June 23, 2009.
http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14027674

This does not shed a good light and I do not believe Eritrea should chose Arabic as a working language for Eritrea. The proposal of some in the opposition of resorting back to the use of Tigrinya and Arabic as the working languages of Eritrea just like the Federation era appears to be very simplistic. It does not address major global economic and political challenges that Eritrea faces.

Needles to state, English is the language of the Internet and the business world. It is the language of learning. Its prominence is even going to be more pronounced in the future with the rapid advancement of the Internet. All the libraries of the great universities of the world will be (or are) available in the Internet. Making English the working language of Eritrea will equalize all Eritrean nationalities on the language question. This should not be taken as a national pride issue. Nor should one be accused of possessing a colonized mind for suggesting a foreign language to be the working language of Eritrea. We need to weigh all its costs and benefits before we close our mind. Many proud nations such as Scotland (home of the birth of the Scottish enlightenment that was the foundation for the ideas of the American revolution and American constitution and thinkers like: Adam Smith, David Hume, James Maxwell, and etc.), Ireland, Singapore and I hope I am not mistaken India, use English as their working language. English has given these nations a tremendous advantage in the world economy over others who do not use English.

This does not mean Eritreans do not have to use their native languages. They do in their day to day interactions, local markets, their religious institutions, private organizations and private schools if they so desire. The government should have no interference in that part. Also the Eritrean languages can be taught as regular language classes in schools and universities. And the religious institution should be free to conduct their affairs in what they believe are appropriate vehicles of communication for their beliefs. But when it comes to working language stick to English. I do not believe the accessibility of the English language will be an insurmountable problem among the Eritrean masses. Once you have a universal education at least up to eighth grade then it is manageable if not a cake walk. It requires thinking in terms of the kind of Eritrea we wish to have in about fifty years from now.

The opposition is inept. At this late stage it pains me to see that some in the opposition are no different than the Taliban in their outlook for Eritrea. This is a telling sign of the weakness that the opposition is displaying of the way it is trying to organize itself. It appears that it does not have solid principles. The unifying factors by their very nature considering the multi-ethnic and multi-religious Eritrea should only be secular and only SECULAR. This is plain common sense. One does not need a course in elementary politics to appreciate this. The principles are very basic and simple: The rule of law and democracy. But the rule of law and democracy have to be solidified concretely with valid mechanisms of institutions on how to go about them.

So far, the way out I see from this vicious and dilapidating circle is that we organize around and salvage the ratified constitution. I arrived at this default position some time ago since I have not seen a better alternative. Some of the major changes that have to be decided beforehand are the land ownership and the working language issues as mentioned above. One should ignore the PFDJ and amend for now the ratified constitution in such a way that: land is not monopolized by the state and have an understanding of the working language of Eritrea. There may also be a need to add other points that enhance the respect of the property rights and the respect of minority rights. Then this modified document can be used as a unifying and minimum common factor that the opposition can use in its fight for the establishment of a liberal democratic Eritrea. Those who do not buy such an idea should be left alone to pursue their own particular agenda and compete in the marketplace of ideas. Otherwise it is pure lunacy to have a united opposition that include organizations who have similar worldview like the Taliban and secular organizations together. It appears that the secular organizations have not yet internalized within themselves the concepts of the rule of law. It is not necessary that one should get unanimous approval of all those who have come together and baptize themselves as opposition groups. Unity that is not based on principles is not unity at all; in fact it is a deadly seed for future bickering.

Once the dictatorial system in Eritrea is abolished the future Eritrean parliament can officially amend the constitution taking into account the experience of the opposition and that of the Eritrean people. Peace.

Mogos Tekeste